Subject: Survive a Heart Attack

From: Natural Heart Alert <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 12:59:51 -0700

Which Fish is Toxic?

(Never Eat it)

a) Salmon

b) Halibut

c) Tuna

View the Answer Here

[Health Alert Systems]

-

-

-

To stop further notification - write Daily Updated Alerts- 9 3 0 6 BOVA CT

Louisville, KY 40291 or visit here

-

=

-

s simple enough to prove out (he's wrong). It's not a subjective issue. I might answer that the vast majority of the industry disagrees, and if he has some evidence to the contrary then it would be worthwhile to provide a scenario and some metrics. Maybe he has some bizarre scenario he's basing his opinion on. That could be an opportunity for you to help him prove his own hunches and become a better, more curious (and therefore eventually more effective) developer. wow man, what's your company again??? Bad publicity if developers there are talking out of their Does this developer avoid WHERE clauses, because he prefers to filter the data manually (or in the application well, it's true inasmuch there isn't anything you can do with an join that you couldn't simulate with multiple single-table queries and client-side logic - the latter will just be slower (often much, MUCH slower) and less maintainable in nearly all cases OP's question actually shows a misconception not uncommon amon
g developers who are not familiar with RDBMSs. Here's a question I was involved in a few days ago that shows a similar misunderstanding:Joining in the app server can be more efficient if joining on the database causes severe redundancy in the result set sent over the network. Consider tables A and B, where each row in A is associated with 20 rows in B, B has only 100 rows, and we want to fetch the first 1000 rows from A with associated rows from B. Joining in the database will result in 20 1000 tuples sent across the network. If the join is done in the app server (first fetching the entire B table into memory), a mere 100 + 1000 rows are sent across the network. However, you are certainly correct in that joins on the database are much faster in most cases, and therefore not just a matter of convenience, but of necessity. I can't think of a case where that would be true, assuming that the query optimizer produces the actually optimal query plan. But if it doesn't, the correct solut
ion is to use hints or adjust the so that the optimal plan is used, rather than joining on the client. I have built queries which could only be efficiently done with joins. Doing the query in the application would have required reading all of three of the largest tables in the database. Typical result set size was in the single digits; worst case was around 200 rows. The query runs hundreds of time an hour. have have been lucky enough to speak with some of the developers who work on Server at Microsoft. It will make you dizzy hearing the optimizations they do on queries. Anyone who thinks that they are smarter than that needs to be smacked. I'm a little surprised; I'd expect the client library to optimise cross joins. May 5 '11 at 1:19