On 21/06/10 12:27, Stephen Russell wrote: > At a UG meeting a while back I asked this Q and the presenter said > that Linq submission back to the DB was better organized to make the > PLAN for the query work better. >
I don't get it. Does it mean that magically linq may get your query and better organize it? Why couldn't they put that wonderful functionality straight into the db? From the examples I've seen posted in this thread it does not seem to have anything that can't be expressed in sql. And if that is so, then it follows there is a way to translate between both syntaxes, ergo nothing new there. > The engine will always have to determine the optimal plan, the Linq > sysntax is just constructed to save a set of steps there. > But if the *syntax* is constructed this way it means the coder will have to pay for these saved steps. Which is a nice thing as long as the queries are simple, but once you get into complex queries... It seems to go against the grain. I thought languages where being designed to make the coder's work easier and let the machine do more of the work. Maybe the tendency is reverting and soon we'll be all back to assembler, whose "syntax is just constructed to save a set of steps " when compared to other higher level languages. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
