pg.ddx.io pgsql-sql@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedCheers for DISTINCT ON
6+ messages / 4 participants
[nested] [flat]
* Cheers for DISTINCT ON
@ 2008-01-07 16:02 Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
2008-01-07 16:18 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
2008-01-07 16:22 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Peter Kovacs @ 2008-01-07 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
why it didn't make it into the standards.
On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting
famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I
felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used
with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then
defunct) EQUEL was much more
expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been
wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
Cheers,
Peter
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
@ 2008-01-07 16:18 ` Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
2008-01-07 17:51 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Sullivan @ 2008-01-07 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:27PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
> why it didn't make it into the standards.
Likely because neither Oracle Corp nor IBM nor (at the time, I guess) Sybase
had an implementation they were willing to spend enough time promoting.
> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
There is a long history in the computing literature on this, but the best
explanation is probably still Richard Gabriel's 'The Rise of "Worse is
Better"': <http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html;. Note that Gabriel
himself is of two minds about that paper:
<http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html;. I still think it's worth
reading. Just about everything I've ever written or said turned out to be
wrong in some sense, but it was still usually the result of the best
argument I could make at the time.
A
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
2008-01-07 16:18 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
@ 2008-01-07 17:51 ` Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
2008-01-07 18:35 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Browne @ 2008-01-07 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
ajs@crankycanuck.ca (Andrew Sullivan) writes:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:02:27PM +0100, Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
>> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
>> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>
> Likely because neither Oracle Corp nor IBM nor (at the time, I guess) Sybase
> had an implementation they were willing to spend enough time promoting.
>
>> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
>> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
>
> There is a long history in the computing literature on this, but the best
> explanation is probably still Richard Gabriel's 'The Rise of "Worse is
> Better"': <http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html;. Note that Gabriel
> himself is of two minds about that paper:
> <http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html;. I still think it's worth
> reading. Just about everything I've ever written or said turned out to be
> wrong in some sense, but it was still usually the result of the best
> argument I could make at the time.
I have heard that Gabriel has, at different conferences at different
times, taken and argued opposite positions on this; he has both argued
"Worse is Better" and that "Worse isn't Better."
Another view is "Good Enough is Better."
http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/good-enough.html
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/advocacy.html
"Generally in war the best policy is to take a state intact; to ruin
it is inferior to this. To win one hundred victories in one hundred
battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without
fighting is the acme of skill." -- Sun-Tzu, The Art of War
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
2008-01-07 16:18 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
2008-01-07 17:51 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
@ 2008-01-07 18:35 ` Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Sullivan @ 2008-01-07 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:51:19PM -0500, Chris Browne wrote:
> I have heard that Gabriel has, at different conferences at different
> times, taken and argued opposite positions on this; he has both argued
> "Worse is Better" and that "Worse isn't Better."
Yes. That history is actually outlined by him in the second link I posted.
A
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
@ 2008-01-07 16:22 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2008-01-07 17:52 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Momjian @ 2008-01-07 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>; +Cc: pgsql-sql
Peter Kovacs wrote:
> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>
> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
> for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting
> famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I
> felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used
> with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then
> defunct) EQUEL was much more
> expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been
> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL. I think
EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the
cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety
of ways.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
2008-01-07 16:22 ` Re: Cheers for DISTINCT ON Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
@ 2008-01-07 17:52 ` Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Browne @ 2008-01-07 17:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: pgsql-sql
bruce@momjian.us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
>> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
>> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>>
>> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
>> for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting
>> famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I
>> felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used
>> with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then
>> defunct) EQUEL was much more
>> expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been
>> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
>> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
>
> As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL. I think
> EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the
> cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety
> of ways.
If EQUEL had continued to evolve, might it not have improved in these
ways?
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lisp.html
Ubuntu is an ancient African word, meaning "can't configure Debian"
^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-01-07 18:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-01-07 16:02 Cheers for DISTINCT ON Peter Kovacs <maxottovonstirlitz@gmail.com>
2008-01-07 16:18 ` Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
2008-01-07 17:51 ` Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
2008-01-07 18:35 ` Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca>
2008-01-07 16:22 ` Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
2008-01-07 17:52 ` Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox