| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Comments:
<0> hey, thanks rmah, I didn't even realize when I wrote that, that + is the string concatenator I thought it was just a math operator :P
<1> ken-: only in MS-SQL. It violates the ANSI SQL-92 standard.
<1> everyone else uses ||
<0> ah ok
<0> i'll keep that in mind, thanks
<0> microsoft tends to violate whatever it feels like, hehe
<0> though I do think + makes sense :)
<1> no it doesn't
<1> consider: a + b == b + a
<1> now replace a and b with strings...
<1> BOOM!
<1> i.e. when you override + to mean string concatination, the semantics of + change depending on the context
<1> that is bad bad bad
<1> it's as if the designers of MS-SQL slept through language design cl*** :-(
<2> ?
<1> !
<1> why the "?" quant?
<2> your rant
<2> meh
<1> what don't you get?
<2> A * B != B * A
<2> when dealing with matriciis
<2> depends on what sets you working on
<1> * is not a matrix operation
<2> i think + is fine for cancatination
<1> do you mean the dot product or the cross product?
<1> no it's not
<2> no
<3> I'm using SQL Server 7.0 and I want to select a set of rows, however, I want to apply distinct on only ONE column
<2> matrix multiplcation
<1> there are two kinds of "matrix multiplication"... cross and dot
<3> when I do select distinct(col1), col2 from tbl1 <--- it doesn't display distinct values for col1
<1> which one do you mean?
<2> pila: group by
<2> rmah: X and dot are vectors :)
<2> matriciis are vectors but
<2> that's not it
<3> I did group by col1 and the same issue
<2> pila: you need to aggregate other fields
<1> AB == BA if A and B are diagnoals of the same dimension :-)
<2> no
<1> yes
<2> not same dimension
<1> it's a special case
<2> height of matrix A must equal Width of matrix B
<1> "diagnoals" ... height and width are the same
<4> yup
<3> how would I aggregate other fields?
<1> erm, diagnoal
<2> rmah: height of first must equal width of other, that's it
<1> dammit, diagonal
<1> either way, mathemeticians don't use '*' to mean multiplication
<4> Quant's mom does
<4> look
<4> (_/*\_)
<1> oh man, that's harsh and not nice at all
<4> lol
<2> (_I_) < shrike's mom before she met me
<4> haha
<2> (_O_) < after
<4> lol
<2> (_(__)_) after she met my friends
<2> daaaaaaaaamn
<4> your friends being the all male gay review
<2> meh
<2> rmah so what do you do these days?
<1> I'm working at RichFx
<2> what's that
<2> Rich ****s?
<1> they produce "rich media" for online retailers (leaders in the field actually)
<1> basically m*** image processing
<2> ahhh
<1> like, Saks asked us to take 12,000+ hi rez product images and generate a bunch of resizes and "zooms" of them
<1> "zooms" are those flash thingys where you can zoom in/out, pan, etc.
<2> yeh
<2> so what do you do?
<1> also do online catalog production using printer PDFs
<1> I run the group that develops the "self-service" software for our customers (i.e. the ASP, application service provider)
<2> ahh
<2> serious guy :)
<1> it's mostly boring... but there are two challenges
<1> 1. LOTS of ***ets... Saks alone has over 1.5 mil ***ets in our system
<1> 2. Distributed processing
<1> and we have a slew of big name retailers...
<2> cool
<1> not really
<1> what are you doing these days, Quant?
<2> still looking
<2> i need financial
<1> have you talked to any recruiters?
<2> a few
<2> gimmie a good one
<1> I dont think any are "good"
<2> y
<5> heh
<1> wouldn't you agree, CoJoNEs?
<5> agreed yes
<2> then i want something that doesn't exist :)
<1> Quant: you have to approach getting a job as a job in and of itself
<1> how many hours a day do you spend on your job hunt? It had better be at least 8 to 10
<1> because all the serious people do
<1> competition out there is fierce and harsh
<1> and no one gives a damn about you but yourself and your mamma
<2> heh
<1> time to grow up boy, the easy life is over
<6> concur
<6> if you're not actively job-hunting, you'd better be spending the time adding real skills to your cv, so as to differentiate yourself from the next schmuck in line
<7> [ms sql2000]:: is there a way to retrieve application role of a connection?
<7> suppose that as soon as an application connects to database and set "exec sp_setapprole 'test', 'p***wd'"
<7> then how can i find out that the current connection's role is 'test'?
<1> sp_setapprole ?
<1> maybe: sp_getapprole ?
<7> there doesn't seem to be no sp_getapprole doesn't exist
<8> in mssql if a stored procedure is creating two temporary stored procedures, will one temporary sp be in scope/accesible to the other sp?
<5> you are creating a stored procedure on the fly?
<8> yea
<5> wtf for?
<8> so my code can be pragmatic and scalable..
<8> (did i lose you?)
<8> :P
<5> that pretty much defeats the purpose of using a stored procedure
<8> No.
<8> it lets me write reusable code
<8> reusable within one stored procedure
<5> no it doesnt
<8> Yes, it does.
<8> if I build a temp sp, i can call that multiple times within my sp
<8> do you not see that?
<5> no, I dont
<8> Hah, well thanks for trying.
<5> and like I said it defeats the purpose of using a stored procedure
<8> it doesn't
<8> yo dont get it.
<5> and you dont get it
<5> can someone wake up and get my back here?
<8> (crickets)
<5> yeah, story of my life
<5> so microsoft actually likes you to write temporary stored procedures?
<2> phargle are you a turd?
<2> temporary stored procedure
<2> doesn't make any sense
<8> so, you idiots would rather write 8 inserts in one stored procedure than write one loop/call to a temp sp.
<5> amen Quant
<2> yes
<8> so when you have a 9th and 10th condition, you have to go back and write more inserts
<2> you're a moron
<8> rather than the sp just continuing to work with the new data?
<8> ****ing idiots.
<6> ffs
<5> why does your stored procedure have to be temporary?
Return to
#sql
or
Go to some related
logs:
efnet Jozz
#red
c-force cracker
#bsd
#3dsmax
shezza efnet
piratesxxx quotes
#goal
#politics
Zain Verjee
|
|