X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10969D98DB for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:33:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 41463-02 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:33:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr4.postgresql.org (svr4.postgresql.org [66.98.251.159]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E071CD9201 for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 12:33:53 -0300 (ADT) Received: from website.brandywine.com (mailcheck.brandywine.com [146.145.113.9]) by svr4.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220C15AF5EA for ; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 15:33:53 +0000 (GMT) X-eSCM-MailFrom: Received: from BAM_EXCHANGE (10.1.0.100) by website.brandywine.com (10.1.0.9); Tue, 27 September 2005 11:36:32 -0400 Received: from [10.1.0.60] (gen-wayne [10.1.0.60]) by bam_exchange.brandywine.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id R6ZYXVK4; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:34:11 -0400 Message-ID: <433966C1.80008@brandywine.com> Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 11:35:29 -0400 From: Daryl Richter Reply-To: daryl@brandywine.com Organization: Brandywine Asset Management User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Molinaro Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: how to do 'deep queries'? References: <3C6C2B281FD3E74C9F7C9D5B1EDA4582182583@wgexch01.wgenhq.net> In-Reply-To: <3C6C2B281FD3E74C9F7C9D5B1EDA4582182583@wgexch01.wgenhq.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/272 X-Sequence-Number: 22819 Anthony Molinaro wrote: > Daryl, > > >>Whether you feel that is unnecessary or not, it *is* the ANSI Standard > > >>and is thus, by definition, "how queries should be written." > > > I disagree 100%. Oracle and db2 introduced window functions years > before > Ansi added them. Should we not have used them? It absurd to avoid using > a feature cuz it's not ansi. > Of course it would be absurd, I have not suggested otherwise. Joins are not a *new* feature. > Honestly, Don't be a slave to ansi, you miss out on all the great > vendor specific functionality *that you're already paying for* > > >>it was added to make the *intention* of the query clearer. > > > More clearer to whom? > > Certainly not developers who have been working for many years > using the old syntax. > > The intention of the old syntax is perfect. Realize that the problem is > not the old syntax, the problem is the watered down database field > today. > I see this more and more with each interview I conduct looking > for dba's and developers. > I generally agree with your assessment of the state of database knowledge (particularly re developers). It is, however, the reality we live in. [snipped nostalgia and back-patting] > I've never worked in a place that used ANSI only syntax and I've never > had a problem with clarity nor any developers I've worked with. > So, I don't at all get what you're saying... > Old style is short and sweet and perfect. > Ansi dumbed it down, that's the bottom line. > And for people who've been developing for sometime, > It's wholly unnecessary. > Well, perhaps you will one day and a developer will hose your server with a "accidental" cross join and then you will understand. But hopefully not. ;) > Regards, > Anthony > [rest snipped] -- Daryl Director of Technology (( Brandywine Asset Management ) ( "Expanding the Science of Global Investing" ) ( http://www.brandywine.com ))