Ben Sizer wrote:
> Bryan Olson wrote:
>> Ben Sizer wrote:
>>> It's not a crackpot theory. It's a completely reasonable theory. SQL is
>>> based on relational algebra, which provides a mathematical set of
>>> operators for grouping data that is stored in separate sets. That data
>>> is selected and
Bryan Olson wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
> > It's not a crackpot theory. It's a completely reasonable theory. SQL is
> > based on relational algebra, which provides a mathematical set of
> > operators for grouping data that is stored in separate sets. That data
> > is selected and projected according
Mike Owens wrote:
> The bottom line: to use *any* database effectively, big or small, one
> has to read its documentation, not the SQL standard.
note that the SQL standard tells you to read the documentation for the
database you're using, in at least 149 places (*).
*) See Annex B. I only ha
On 12 Sep 2006 00:15:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just to be fair...
>
> You do hear many people claiming exactly that, and the primary
> complaint is often exactly the same one that's being levelled against
> sqlite here (it's incredibly lax with types and does sometim
Marty wrote:
> On 9/11/06, Mike Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I coworker pointed me to this thread.
>
> Joy for us.
>
>>
>> < snipped good information >
>
> In all seriousness, the information you present here is great, and
> much appreciated. Your sarcastic, condescending tone kind of get
Oops! Sorry for the top-post!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Mike Owens wrote:
> And if you say SQLite misrepresents itself,
> then what do you say about MySQL, which until version 5 didn't have
> views or triggers? In fact, it didn't even have subselects until
> version 4. For a period of years, SQLite had more mainstream SQL
> features than MySQL. Yet you
On 9/11/06, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In all seriousness, the information you present here is great, and
> much appreciated. Your sarcastic, condescending tone kind of gets in
> the way of the message, though.
Sarcastic, perhaps. Condesceding, I think not. It is ridiculous that
people ca
On 9/11/06, Mike Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I coworker pointed me to this thread.
Joy for us.
>
> < snipped good information >
In all seriousness, the information you present here is great, and
much appreciated. Your sarcastic, condescending tone kind of gets in
the way of the message, t
I coworker pointed me to this thread.
>>>and why it isn't SQL.
>> It isn't SQL simply because SQL won't let you insert text
>> into a numeric field.
> Yup, I have to agree that's pretty crappy. (Makes mental note to limit
> use of SQLite).
Ever heard of check constraints? That's another feature
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> Probably just me. I've only been using Access and SQL Server
>>> for 12 years, so I'm sure my opinions don't count for anything.
>>>
>> SQLite never pretended to be a full-blown RDBMS - just a lightweight
>> simpl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Paul McNett wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Do you know what INNER JOIN means?
>>>
>>>Do you know how important it is to a relational database?
>>>
>>>Can you explain how an INNER JOIN can even work, in theory,
>>>with dynamic data types?
>>
>>Let's stop the pi
Paul McNett wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Do you know what INNER JOIN means?
> >
> > Do you know how important it is to a relational database?
> >
> > Can you explain how an INNER JOIN can even work, in theory,
> > with dynamic data types?
>
> Let's stop the pissing contest and just see how
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 8 Sep 2006 16:46:03 -0700, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>
>
> After a sequence of hypothetical results of occult SQL you show
> this...
> >
> > invoices = [(1,'066','101 Ways to Start A Fight','s
George Sakkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Sure, errors happen with static typing. After all, the values still
> > have to match. Dynamic typing allows for more potential errors and,
> > thanks to Murpy's Law, I will have a much bigger problem with data
> > integrity.
>
> If this was a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sure, errors happen with static typing. After all, the values still
> have to match. Dynamic typing allows for more potential errors and,
> thanks to Murpy's Law, I will have a much bigger problem with data
> integrity.
If this was a java or c++ list, all this rant woul
Ben Sizer wrote:
> It's not a crackpot theory. It's a completely reasonable theory. SQL is
> based on relational algebra, which provides a mathematical set of
> operators for grouping data that is stored in separate sets. That data
> is selected and projected according to its value, and nothing els
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ben Sizer wrote:
> >> I don't think so... it doesn't take much to say that the module
> >> implements a subset of SQL but stores ignores data types.
> >
> > So I can't just say
> >
> > WHERE qty=12
> >
> > I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you know what INNER JOIN means?
>
> Do you know how important it is to a relational database?
>
> Can you explain how an INNER JOIN can even work, in theory,
> with dynamic data types?
Let's stop the pissing contest and just see how it works. After all,
this is Pyt
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
>> I don't think so... it doesn't take much to say that the module
>> implements a subset of SQL but stores ignores data types.
>
> So I can't just say
>
> WHERE qty=12
>
> I have to say
>
> WHERE (qty=12) OR (qty="12")
No yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Ben Sizer wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
>>>What are the chances that anything I send in as a bug report
>>>will simply be ignored? Kind of like the Emporer's New Clothes, eh?
>>>It would be an admission of ignorance and stupidity on the part
>>>of the Python Dev
Ben Sizer wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> > > SQLite never pretended to be a full-blown RDBMS - just a lightweight
> > > simple embedded database as SQL-compliant as possible.
> >
> > Ah, *you* haven't read the documentation either!
> >
> > "as SQL-compliant as po
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> > SQLite never pretended to be a full-blown RDBMS - just a lightweight
> > simple embedded database as SQL-compliant as possible.
>
> Ah, *you* haven't read the documentation either!
>
> "as SQL-compliant as possible"?
>
> ROTFLMAO!
No need t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Probably just me. I've only been using Access and SQL Server
>>>for 12 years, so I'm sure my opinions don't count for anything.
>>>
>>
>>SQLite never pretended to be a full-blown RDBMS - just a lightweight
>>s
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Probably just me. I've only been using Access and SQL Server
> > for 12 years, so I'm sure my opinions don't count for anything.
> >
>
> SQLite never pretended to be a full-blown RDBMS - just a lightweight
> simple embedded database as SQL-c
25 matches
Mail list logo
