emperor: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 03:05pm on 09/09/2009 under ,
Since SQL has not been my friend today...

[Poll #1455301]
There are 8 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
toothycat: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] toothycat at 02:09pm on 09/09/2009
 
posted by [identity profile] aardvark179.livejournal.com at 02:16pm on 09/09/2009
Unknown
emperor: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] emperor at 02:22pm on 09/09/2009
Tickybox
 
posted by [identity profile] aardvark179.livejournal.com at 02:13pm on 09/09/2009
I hate it when it comes to predicate optimisation, and bug reports from people who don't love it.
 
posted by [identity profile] beckyc.livejournal.com at 02:40pm on 09/09/2009
I boggled when I first was doing excel macros and discovered that there were the visibility options visible, hidden and very hidden.
 
posted by [identity profile] didiusjulianus.livejournal.com at 04:35pm on 09/09/2009
Any kind of logic is all right with me, it's things completely lacking in logic that I'm not generally so keen on :)
 
posted by [identity profile] mhoulden.livejournal.com at 09:48pm on 09/09/2009
Of course the only sensible answer is yes and no. There are many times when I've thought SQL should have a MAYBE operator to go with LIKE and SOUNDEX, but I keep wanting to SELECT UNTO things.
 
posted by [identity profile] queex.livejournal.com at 12:22pm on 11/09/2009
I meant to say- if you think SQL is bad, R uses an inconsistent ternary logic model. Witness:

> NA & TRUE
[1] NA
> tmp <- c(1,2,3,NA)
> tmp>=3
[1] FALSE FALSE TRUE NA
> tmp[tmp>=3]
[1] 3 NA

Yes, that's right, the array selection syntax treats NA as TRUE.

July

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
    1
 
2
 
3 4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31
 
   
OSZAR »