6 ms·
> you are abusing SQL to hack around overhead issues. > Logically, users and posts are distinct relations as it pertains to that example. They have no business
by dventimi 3y ago
> you are abusing SQL to hack around overhead issues.
> Logically, users and posts are distinct relations as it pertains to that example. They have no business being joined here.
> There is a place for joins, but that's not it.
> So already, for the simplest case imaginable, you are using SQL outside of the way it was designed to be used.
I'm sorry. What?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- randomdata 3y agoWhen confused, it is best to read the whole thing, not just arbitrarily chosen snippets.
- dventimi 3y agoWhy did you write this?
- randomdata 3y agoSame reason why I write anything. Why would this be different?
- dventimi 3y agoAnd yet not being a mind reader I won't know what your reason is until you tell me. You're not obliged to tell me what that reason is, of course, but so long as you don't say what that reason is, you fail to rule out the possibility that you don't actually have a reason.
- randomdata 3y agoYour suggestion that humans might do something without reason is intriguing. Tell us more, if you are so inclined.
- dventimi 3y agoSure. Consider the obverse: "Humans ALWAYS have a [rational] reason for their actions." The word "always" is logically necessary and yet it sets an extremely high bar to be cleared. Is this the position you want to stake yourself to? Note: yes, I added the word "rational" here to be explicit but which I only implied earlier. If you want to quibble about that let me save you the trouble. If you want to say that you had a reason, but it just wasn't a rational one, I'll accept that. After all, I'm not unreasonable.
- randomdata 3y agoThe statement is not considerable as stated. It does not provide enough information to be able to do so. Logically, rationality is context dependent, but the statement is made without defining the context under which it is posed. The second half of the comment suffers much the same problem. If I wanted to say that the reason was rational (or not), I would need to know under what context it is being said. The reason is undoubtedly both rational and irrational, depending on context. There is not enough information in this thread to establish under what context the reader is intending to interpret the assertion should one want to assert it.
- dventimi 3y agoGibberish. Sophistry. Gorilla dust thrown to obscure what's probably happened here. What's probably happened is that you had a reason--or thought you did--but that's now thrown into doubt and so you're trying to obfuscate the matter. What's probably happened is that you were motivated to assume that I hadn't read the thread (I mean, you said as much) as an easy way to deflect scrutiny of your reasoning. Except, I did read the thread, which means your assumption was wrong. Rather than admit that, again the tactic is to obfuscate. I've seen it a million times.
- randomdata 3y agoFun story. If you had put that much effort into actually reading the thread in the first place you would have been able to answer your own question. For what it is worth, it is recognized that you did go back and eventually read the thread – and thus answer your own question – later once you realized how dumb the question was.