ebmigue

Is my method of explaining my answers inherently problematic and offensive to certain persons, and is extremely unprofessional - in short, violating the ToS? If not, I will go on with it, if you don't mind. If so, please explain to me rationally and reasonably through PMs.

No you cannot. And I will show to you why you cannot and did not actually. Why was it obvious? Because of arithmetic's axioms: theory. Its being obvious is a direct acknowledgement of the person in question that he is knowledgeable about arithmetic. Are you saying now that arithmetic is empirical? Your argument uses other people's opinions on the (in)correctness of 2 + 2 = 5. Granted that: why did other people know that 2 + 2 = 5 isn't right? Why were they able to say that it is incorrect, "is inconsistent w/ previous outcomes, or someone else's outcome"? Because of arithmetic's axioms: theory. Because of society's knowledge about arithmetic. The abundance of calculators has nothing to do w/ its being broken or not; nor w/ the user's knowledge about arithmetic. If you do get a non-broken one, one that does 2 + 2 right -- how did you know it? Because you knew arithmetic in the first place. No, "ta-da" is not that easy. How will you know that the new one you acquired will not give you the same problems? That "everything works again"? You cannot know it, unless you are acquainted w/ knowledge on arithmetic. You cannot deny that. No, my posts are not going on circles. And I can assure you that it is not my intention to flame anyone. If I did, there were asking for it. But I sincerely apologise for it in any case. Objectively speaking: Locking this thread will not subvert the fact that knowledge in arithmetic is necessary before one can reliably and effectively use calculators. Subjectively speaking: IMO, The same goes with relational DBMSs (calculators) and Relational Theory (arithmetic).

The most nonsensical post I've read hitherto.

You can always call me names; or indulge in your hallucinations; or use non-relevant facts about my posts. You can always do those things. If I had repeated my posts, that is because the conversation necessitates it. Because I am trying to keep a conversation/discussion by replying relevant posts. But you cannot deny the fact that I just stated in my most previous post, namely: In order to determine that a calculator (or DBMS for that matter) is _basically defective_, you must know arithmetic (or Relational Theory for that matter).

To clarify: DISTINCT is NOT "responsible" if "the fact that there's an opportunity for index usage" is hidden. DISTINCT is merely a syntactic construct. As such, it has no life of its own, so to speak. As such, it is further processed by the parser, and then the parse tree is then processed by the DBMS optimizer. Hence, "the fact that there's an opportunity for index usage" is hidden is thus due to the optimizer's behavior. One can go on claim to avoid using DISTINCT for such reasons. Sure. But then there is the possibility of duplicate records/tuples, and all the problems with it.

Yes. It is a defective calculator. And how exactly will it be "pretty obvious"? How will you exactly know when "its results [are] wrong"? Only when you know arithmetic. Only when you know theory. Nobody can deny that.

Then MySQL is not user friendly.

The same applies to everyone.

Try: SELECT DISTINCT detail_sheets.id FROM detail_sheets WHERE NOT EXISTS ( SELECT DISTINCT detail_sheets_.id FROM detail_sheets AS detail_sheets_ ,enquiries ,jobs WHERE enquiries.detail_sheetRef = detail_sheets_.id AND jobs.enquiryRef = enquiries.id AND detail_sheets_.status = 'Customer' AND detail_sheets_.id = detail_sheets.id ) Hope it helps.

To a certain extent, that is true. I will never learn things and claims that are absurd. Such as the claim that "theory has no place in the real world." The story of erline tables too I am incapable of learning. I found a copy about it at a local library - the book was for disposal. No wonder.

@fenway That is a baseless statement. Really? Now what if the user is given a defective calculator, one that does 2 + 2 = 5. Now, since he is ignorant of theory, of arithmetic, he accepts what the calculator says: 2 + 2 = 5. What do you call that? Is not that "doomed to fail?" Claiming that it is not is just absurd considering that we are IT professionals here: practitioners of the direct effects of science - technology.

I cannot anymore reply to such posts, because they are irrelevant. @truly interested readers: This is not my fault.

I meant: The teacher and the novice will never have the same POVs. Your claim that my posts/advice of acquainting oneself w/ relational algebra is confusing people is a subjective claim. Please avoid generalising your opinions for others. Let them think on their own. Thank you and hope it helps.

State your basis for saying that, so that we will have a fruitful discussion.

Then since that was directed to the quote above, the content of the quote above must be irrelevant too -- all according to you.

Please prove/show to us that it is so. You will be doing us a benefit.

I'm glad you are. At least you've got half of the whole DBMS history (40 years). And I think, 50% of those years you had not experienced as a professional(yet). So, there is still some doubt. Objectively speaking.

Are you now bullying me and using your authority, because of your reputation here? Please, I don't want to get personal. let's stick with the posts, the content of posts. Yes. In my experience, he can create his own concrete solution. The solution I suggested was an idea. Are you telling me giving ideas are not anymore allowed here? I don't think that it's better of them all. Just a suggestion to the OP. Just that. Some framework may not be "that abstract", but of course, abstraction is not the only criteria for being "better" right? But the general idea of using relational algebra, _might_ be a good start of abstraction. That was the whole idea of my suggestion to him. Again I am sorry if I didn't fully disclose it. On the next opportunity, I will do so.

The teacher and the novice will never have the POVs.

I'm glad you are. At least you've got half of the whole DBMS history (40 years). And I think, 50% of those years you had not experienced (yet). So, there is still some doubt. Objectively speaking.

The fact remains: Both manufacturer and user must know arithmetic. A calculator manufacturer ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail. A calculator user ignorant of arithmetic is doomed to fail. The same thing for DBMS (just substitute the word "DBMS" for the word "calculator"; and the word "relational theory" for "arithmetic")

Alright. Next time, I will. He said: Why you were able to infer that "the OP is looking for a solution, not more work to do. They asked for something that *does* support PostgreSQL," baffles me. I suggested re, because they can still have time to write their own driver "if they did" migrate. A suggestion and a working product might be solutions. Because I think that existing frameworks are not "that abstract."

I see. Good luck with that.

True. The extend of such knowledge of theory might vary of course. But the fact remains: they both need knowledge of theory.

I don't know why you were able to say that, especially since you are NOT a novice user.