3 ms·
Yes I picked that up and was tempted to comment. But then half way down it addresses this with the section “Many relationships”: > Until now we have discussed
by wood_spirit 3y ago
Yes I picked that up and was tempted to comment. But then half way down it addresses this with the section “Many relationships”:
> Until now we have discussed scenarios that are considered one-to-one merges. In these cases, we only expect one participant in a dataset to be joined to one instance of that same participant in the other dataset.
> However, there are scenarios where this will not be the case…
- jarym 3y agoGot it, in my opinion the structure is likely to mislead people because it doesn’t make clear that it refers to ‘one-to-one’ relationships at the outset (in fact not even, it deals with the cases of one-to-one and one-to-none) - it only refers to ‘left join’.
- wood_spirit 3y agoYeap, the whole article is confusing to us who are already very familiar with eg SQL joins and things. It’s not using mainstream terminology. But I guess we are not the audience.
- HelloNurse 3y agoI agree that this article is introductory, but it makes the many non-standard and anti-standard terms (e.g. "vertical joins") less forgivable: misleading learners is worse than irritating experts.