126

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, wildwind, you wrote: W> Here it is a little strange for me. In other DBMS the difference happens well noticeable. After all expenses for parsing and semantic control anywhere do not disappear. Especially if this "hot" place. Typical  in the size in fifty kilobyte is executed tens seconds. Parsing microseconds here are imperceptible even in a microscope. Even expenses for interpretation and those are more visible.

127

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> It not habit questions. These are overall performance questions. What for to force itself to write fifty kilobyte there where it is possible to write five kilobyte? S> I when started to master SQL thought as you. And after several years of operation actually SQL the programmer started to see its lacks. Why you say, what on SQL the code it turns out more? Though actually about accuracy to   it is less than code and strongly less. I to you resulted in one of branches an example with the list. To you that analog of two lines on SQL to write it is necessary to write  a code amount, or reconciles to the worst implementation.

128

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> Why you say, what on SQL the code it turns out more? Though actually about accuracy to   it is less than code and strongly less. This any . G> I to you resulted in one of branches an example with the list. To you that analog of two lines on SQL to write it is necessary to write  a code amount, or reconciles to the worst implementation. It is possible once again this example? I do not see the code about which you speak.

129

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S> Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G>> So at you already rw-lokov it is necessary to write the dictionary, it is not a lot of while. Well and how you will do locks ? Still it is necessary to invent it and to write... G>> And whether there will be at you locks about ? And escalation of locks at you will be or all will be on simple and is as consequence ineffective? And diagnostic aids at you what on a collection what will be?  how to catch? And that if your collection not  in operative storage entirely, but you actively work with some part, that is there is active and  parts.  it is quiet hindering can lie to nobody on a disk. The SQL Server gives it. And a storage fragmentation? If at you in the middle records are deleted, how many the storage collection will occupy? In a word, to write something similar to a SQL Server difficult and as a result you receive a SQL Server, only on C# and with bugs... S> you it to what? I do not offer  a SQL Server, you argue about something not volume. For this purpose that does a SQL Server, the alternative, in general is not present. Only others RDBMS the same class. S> and here for this purpose to that the collection in storage suffices, the SQL Server will be . It is better to reconcile To it in advance, differently all life leaves on struggle against windmills. It I all to that SQL a high-level language. If in C# from something similar is only garbage collector, in SQL look how many all and escalation of locks etc., etc. Therefore the SQL text turns out compact and the similar code on C# was very strongly more.

130

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> Hello, Sinclair, you wrote: S>> Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G>>> Suspicious at you rich model... In particular a call method Db. FindContractByEmployee (employee) G>>> G>>> foreach (var employee in Db. GetAllEmployees ()) G>>> {G>>> if (employee. CurrentPosition = position) G>>> {G>>> var c = employee. Contracts. FirstOrDefault ();//Or Where... All is provided ORM. With linq2db I does not turn out to write such code so I understand. Is there LazyLoad? G>>> c. AdjustSalary (c. CurrentSalary + c. CurrentSalary * 0.10, effectiveDate); G>>>} G>>>} G>>> S>> thanks for correction. Lazy Load in linq2db is not present, and thank God. You understand, than this code is awful? S>> if to look at its execution under a SQL Profiler hair begin to move even there where they are not present. G> Well. . At me can and move But there are supporters who start to prove that is a database is guilty... Let's on MongoDB pass, there brakes are not present. Well so the correct answer not in , and not in . And in var employees = from e in db. Employee where e. CurrentPosition = position select e; var contracts = db. GetActiveContracts (employees);//from c in db. EmployeeContracts where c. EmployeeId in (from e in employees select id) and c. Status = ContractStatus. Active select c; contracts. Insert (db. ContractChange, c => new ContractChange {ContractID = c. Id, EffectiveDate = effectiveDate, SalaryAmount = c. CurrentSalary * 1.1});

131

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: S>> you it to what? I do not offer  a SQL Server, you argue about something not volume. For this purpose that does a SQL Server, the alternative, in general is not present. Only others RDBMS the same class. S>> and here for this purpose to that the collection in storage suffices, the SQL Server will be . It is better to reconcile To it in advance, differently all life leaves on struggle against windmills. G> it I all to that SQL a high-level language. If in C# from something similar is only garbage collector, in SQL look how many all and escalation of locks etc., etc. Therefore the SQL text turns out compact and the similar code on C# was very strongly more. In C# from "something similar" is Linq. It tears T-SQL to rags by decomposition possibilities. In T-SQL from something similar linq there is only a splice of lines and EXECUTE which  are heavy for debugging and supporting. It turns out that to everyone - the. On # we write the heavy logic which is difficult for writing out manually on SQL. And locks and optimization of plans remains in a SQL Server.

132

Re: Business of the logician in

Hello, Gattaka, you wrote: G> S> In such scenario usage  is an attempt to transform RDBMS in that app-server. I.e. to clients close access to tables; at the best we give read-only though even it  is dangerous (because always there is a risk that we added  type IsDeleted, and somewhere in a corner the client on  which about it does not know anything was overlooked, and continues   with data imperceptibly different from official digits). G> S> Let  . G> DML - it is necessary to forbid... At you after all with App the server too anybody the contract cannot suddenly change. To add a field in DTO IsDeleted? Not DML, and DDL. DTO the circuit is concerned by closer to any. Somehow with possession of terminology not so the Faith in that that  is unconditional faster the code. Not ability to describe ** business the task (instead of implementation) for the example. All it very much complicates subject dispute. avalon 1.0rc3 build 430, zlib 1.2.5