On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 10:19 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Is it weird that "Database in Depth" is shorter and easier than "Introduction
> to Database Systems"? And they're by the same author, too.
I agree that it's a little strange. The former is more conceptual and
starts off assuming that y
On Tuesday 28 July 2009 04:38:03 Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 21:05 -0400, Robert James wrote:
> > 1) Introduction to Database Systems
> > http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Database-Systems-Kannan-Swamynathan/dp
> >/B001BVYKY4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248742811&sr=1-5
> >
> > a
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:26:01AM -0400, Robert James wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Sam Mason wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:14:38AM -0400, Robert James wrote:
> > > Many wrote that the functional programming 'fold' is a good model for
> > > relational aggregate functions. I h
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Sam Mason wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:14:38AM -0400, Robert James wrote:
> > Many wrote that the functional programming 'fold' is a good model for
> > relational aggregate functions. I have a few difficulties with this:
> > 1. fold doesn't offer any type
Thanks! "SQL and Relational Theory: How to Write Accurate SQL Code" looks
like the best pick of the bunch.
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Michael Glaesemann
wrote:
>
> On Jul 27, 2009, at 21:05 , Robert James wrote:
>
> 2) Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners
>>
>> http://ww
On Jul 27, 2009, at 21:05 , Robert James wrote:
2) Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners
http://www.amazon.com/Database-Depth-Relational-Theory-Practitioners/dp/0596100124/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248742811&sr=1-7
"Database in Depth" is good, though he's effectively re
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 09:14:38AM -0400, Robert James wrote:
> Many wrote that the functional programming 'fold' is a good model for
> relational aggregate functions. I have a few difficulties with this:
> 1. fold doesn't offer any type of GROUP BY, which is an essential component
> of aggregatio
Many wrote that the functional programming 'fold' is a good model for
relational aggregate functions. I have a few difficulties with this:
1. fold doesn't offer any type of GROUP BY, which is an essential component
of aggregation.
2. I don't believe fold can handle things like AVG() or STDDEV().
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 21:05 -0400, Robert James wrote:
> 1) Introduction to Database Systems
> http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Database-Systems-Kannan-Swamynathan/dp/B001BVYKY4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248742811&sr=1-5
>
> and
> 2) Database in Depth: Relational Theory for Practitioners
>
Thanks for all the good replies (both on and off list). It seems the
consensus is for me to read Christopher Date. I found two relevant Date
books:
1) Introduction to Database Systems
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Database-Systems-Kannan-Swamynathan/dp/B001BVYKY4/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&q
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 15:36 -0400, Robert James wrote:
> I'm working on improving my background database theory, to aid in
> practice. I've found learning relational algebra to be very helpful.
> One thing which relational algebra doesn't cover is aggregate
> functions. Can anyone recommend any
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 03:36:26PM -0400, Robert James wrote:
> Can anyone
> recommend any papers or web pages which provide some good theoretical
> background for aggregate functions?
My knowledge of relational algebra is somewhat non-existent as well;
I tend to just think of them as a "fold" fro
I'm working on improving my background database theory, to aid in practice.
I've found learning relational algebra to be very helpful. One thing which
relational algebra doesn't cover is aggregate functions. Can anyone
recommend any papers or web pages which provide some good theoretical
backgro
13 matches
Mail list logo
