IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Databases Forum / Or, get rid of SQL
Post #118,830
by tablizer
9/25/03 11:51:28 AM
Reply
New Or, get rid of SQL
and replace it with a BS12-like alternative where you can reference similar stuff by name. SQL was chosen by IBM over BS12 because they thought managers would relate to its more English-like grammar. IOW, SQL is the COBOL of relational languages.

Anyhow, I still don't know why the simple one worked but the more complex one did not. If I get time, I will incrimentally strip the bigger one piece by piece until it works. So much for pair programming. (Or if I get too fat: *pear* programming.)
________________
oop.ismad.com
Post #119,080
by tablizer
9/26/03 1:48:39 PM
Reply
New update

It appears we could repeat the calculation over and over again, but we also refer to the calculated part in several parts of the WHERE clause. Thus, it is actually less wordy and better factored to have a double select instead, which allows one to use the alias.
________________
oop.ismad.com
Post #119,084
by ChrisR
9/26/03 2:15:20 PM
Reply
New The other alternative is...
...to factor the calculation into a pl/sql function. Of course, you'd still have to have the call to the function, but it makes for more reusability in the long run.
Post #119,142
by tablizer
9/26/03 9:40:12 PM
Reply
New I asked for a view to be created, but was immed. rejected
Asking for a new function is not likely to get a better reception.
________________
oop.ismad.com
     group-by on calculated columns not direct - (tablizer) - (17) - Sept. 24, 2003, 02:30:32 PM EDT
         The other way to do it... - (ChrisR) - (16) - Sept. 24, 2003, 02:37:56 PM EDT
             Another way to put it, is... - (CRConrad) - (4) - Sept. 24, 2003, 03:52:43 PM EDT
                 Don't think that was the problem - (drewk) - (2) - Sept. 24, 2003, 04:02:22 PM EDT
                     Same thing; a calculation IS a "virtual column". - (CRConrad) - (1) - Sept. 24, 2003, 05:58:54 PM EDT
                         Ahh, ok - (drewk) - Sept. 25, 2003, 12:02:00 PM EDT
                 I got wrong alias format - (ChrisR) - Sept. 24, 2003, 04:11:50 PM EDT
             Hmmmm. Thot I tried that - (tablizer) - (10) - Sept. 24, 2003, 06:21:24 PM EDT
                 The proviso being.... - (ChrisR) - (9) - Sept. 24, 2003, 09:26:56 PM EDT
                     That is less of a pain if you build the query dynamically - (ben_tilly) - (8) - Sept. 25, 2003, 12:12:59 AM EDT
                         Or, if you do it manually, good ol' copy-and-paste. -NT - (CRConrad) - Sept. 25, 2003, 04:55:01 AM EDT
                         That would presume Dynamic SQL - (ChrisR) - (6) - Sept. 25, 2003, 09:38:51 AM EDT
                             I think Ben meant, and Bryce would use, a programming... - (CRConrad) - (5) - Sept. 25, 2003, 10:00:12 AM EDT
                                 Right, that or... - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Sept. 25, 2003, 10:32:22 AM EDT
                                     Or, get rid of SQL - (tablizer) - (3) - Sept. 25, 2003, 11:51:28 AM EDT
                                         update - (tablizer) - (2) - Sept. 26, 2003, 01:48:39 PM EDT
                                             The other alternative is... - (ChrisR) - (1) - Sept. 26, 2003, 02:15:20 PM EDT
                                                 I asked for a view to be created, but was immed. rejected - (tablizer) - Sept. 26, 2003, 09:40:12 PM EDT

Fall not in love therefore; it will stick to your face.
79 ms