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
12 matches
Mail list logo
