|
Shaggar posted:they're both retarded cause user.find 10 is probably orming and writes the same sql this probably doesn't make sense to a j-language person but the nice part about it is it writes the sql and not me
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
you guys should check out perl its good at all this
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
im orming so hard right now
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
ormy taints
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Jonny 290 posted:you guys should check out perl its good at all this perl also has one of teh best ORMs of any language
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
orming out of control
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:this probably doesn't make sense to a j-language person but the nice part about it is it writes the sql and not me yes it wrote the bad sql for you but it doesn't matter cause you're using ruby so your slow runtime will always disguise the slowness of your database.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
write all your bespoke sql then have linqer convert it to linq
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
Bloody posted:what is normalization http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Database+normalization&l=1
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
uggghhh that's a lot of sperg about data gently caress nevermind i dont care any more
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
I was starting a care post but then I was like WTF I'm just repeating what wikipedia says and with less pictures  e: it just comes down to organizing your stupid tables to reduce a bunch of lovely side effects that can happen like that first picture on wikipedia. There are different levels of how correct you can make your db with the consensus being that form 3 is good enough and anything above is really spergy but can and probably will gently caress your poo poo up in production but 
Janitor Prime fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Sep 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
if you have a bunch of users and facts about users, and lets say order history, storing it all in one table would lead to you storing the persons name and address and poo poo (number of orders) over again. splitting order history out into a separate table with a unique user_id to join the data back together when you need it prevents unnecessary duplication. it gets messy tho 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
that image may confuse the person who just bought the anime sql book
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
its not messy, its clean. it feels good to look at normalized data
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
developers are bad and don't do it so they turn to nosql garbage with their cute 30 gb of data
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
nothing soothes my autism like good data design
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:its not messy, its clean. it feels good to look at normalized data yes i agree it soothes my autism. but just an example that it can get more complicated that my babby example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
lol hi5 shaggar for both our autism being soothed
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:nothing soothes my autism like good data design same it really gets my goat when we get data from a client and it's a god damned mess and we can't do anything about it
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
git clone trooper posted:if you have a bunch of users and facts about users, and lets say order history, storing it all in one table would lead to you storing the persons name and address and poo poo (number of orders) over again. sports
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:nothing soothes my autism like good data design
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
basically just realize that it's a pain in the rear end to track of the same data stored in multiple places, so you should store one fact in one place. the different normalization levels are deciding what a fact is and how important it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
git clone trooper posted:developers are bad and don't do it so they turn to nosql garbage with their cute 30 gb of data i use an orm and don't know a lick of SQL but normalized database design just comes naturally. i cannot comprehend doing it another way. a guy at work has been doing some stuff in filemaker that is pretty useful for business stuff (and would have taken ages to do in something that isn't filemaker). when he started i was telling him about database normalization and he wasn't quite getting it. he told me the other day that one of his tables has 325 fields and he's starting to understand why design is important.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
to the guy who is trying to learn sql all this stuff comes naturally from practical usage like the very first principle, I want to store poo poo in a database. you just learned INSERT extract it back out again. SELECT *. hmm I should tie users to their posts to the threads they were made in. INNER JOIN baby most of the forums don't appear in the main listing page. only the forum that has a test thread shows up. LEFT OUTER JOIN that poo poo and now I have a bunch of copy/pasted sql. that's bad right. you bet it is, time to create some sprocs and functions
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
sql is like babby's first programming language. any dev who can't organize data properly sure as hell can't organize a real codebase.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
all the people saying normalisation is intuitive aren't bragging either. if you see duplicated and/or optional data you probably have a problem and want to fix it think of a (literal) parent-child relationship. maybe the first thing a novice thinks is to add a NULLable "child name" column onto the user table. won't take long though before you run into issues with that and realise you should have another table with some kind of one-many (or perhaps many-many to be able to model both parents) relationship instead then the next time you start something you'll do it right first time
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
learn relational algebra first then you can get mad that oracle sql doesnt support antijoins
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
learning relational algebra in uni was an anti-pattern when it came to actually learning how the gently caress joins worked in a real program
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
I never worked with SQL long enough to develop a good intuition for joins. that'll probably bite me in the rear end someday. rip.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
i think new people have problem with normalization when it comes to eye balling their tables in phpmyadmin and not seeing all the relevant info just right there like they are used to
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 00:57
|
|
|
~Coxy posted:learning relational algebra in uni was an anti-pattern when it came to actually learning how the gently caress joins worked in a real program maybe u and or the professor sucked cause for basic ops theres a straightforward mapping from relational algebra to sql
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
probably me but yeahPleasingFungus posted:I never worked with SQL long enough to develop a good intuition for joins. that'll probably bite me in the rear end someday. worst thing I ever did when I was little is make a timed daemon to insert the correct entries into the database so they would show up from a statements that has too many inner joins in my defence it was because it used the , join syntax which loving sucks for readability
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
uG posted:i think new people have problem with normalization when it comes to eye balling their tables in phpmyadmin and not seeing all the relevant info just right there like they are used to
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:i'm shocked that a php-based tool would have serious shortcomings and make it difficult to comprehend a thing in computing 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
hey cocoa crispies how do you do testing in cocoa/objc stuff? because i'm partial to ruby i really wanted to get some of the ruby based frameworks working but they all seem to target iOS stuff, which I'm not interested in. I spent the last day or so messing with frank-cucumber which is cool but it isn't really ready to go on osx
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
Does Google like terrible programmers?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 02:28
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:Does Google like terrible programmers? Do bears write python in the woods?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 02:29
|
|
|
shameful programmer status (sss): spent an hour today not understanding why my poo poo was crashing at runtime when i tried to delete a pointer turns out i didn't make the destructor on the base type virtual and so it was invoking undefined behavior C++
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Mido posted:Do bears write python in the woods? Some crazy Googler contacted me for an interview tomorrow so I'll find out.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2013 03:02
|
|