> State why you don't > like it and move on. Don't contribute any code that might address the idea. > The rest? It is not useful.
It is useful. It help stops people who don't understand the concept of relational, screwing up the system. You just disagree with that. On 7 Jul 2013, at 22:24, Scott Robison <sc...@casaderobison.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Keith Medcalf <kmedc...@dessus.com> wrote: > >> >> Despite the long diatribes you have not indicated a single case in which >> the set ordinal of the row would be of any use whatsoever. >> >> For 40 years we have gotten on without it, so yes, it is only for you >> newbies that somehow think there is a use for it, and for 40 years no one >> has ever come upon a real need to have set ordinals generated by the >> database engine as part of the cursor processing (for various definitions >> of database engine). >> >> Kind of makes you wonder what you might have overlooked or are assuming >> incorrectly doesn't it? >> >> > If you wish to posit that a row number function is not useful, that's fine. > You don't have to like it or support its inclusion. To claim that there has > not been a single case described where it would be of any use whatsoever > clearly demonstrates that you have not bothered reading the messages you're > replying to! The cases have been described, you simply disagree with them. > There *is* utility in being able to have a row or rank number function. For > example, lets say you are Billboard Magazine and you keep track of record > sales. On a weekly basis you generate a list of the top 40 selling records. > One of your customers wants that list in descending order. There are > certainly ways you can accomplish this without a rank function, but a rank > function can make the SQL clearer, easier to maintain. > > At my last job I used Microsoft SQL Server (as that was technology selected > before I was hired) and used a rank number capability provided in T/SQL as > part of a query to generate a list of files in a particular order. The > order was important in my use case (prioritization of a set of files > comprising multiple terabytes of data that needed to be synchronized, but > where not all data was equally important). I didn't need to send all the > sort criteria to each remote site, I just needed to ensure the order was > maintained. Could I have done it in a different way? Yes. But as mentioned > on multiple occasions, the idea of the rank or row number function is not > that there is no other way to accomplish the task, it is about convenience. > > Now, you are free to dislike my approach to solving the problem. I'm sure > there are better ways to accomplish what needed to be done. Regardless of > that, what I did was convenient and got the job done. Had that capability > not been available to me, I could have done it in another way. No one is > arguing that there isn't another way to accomplish the stated task. > > Regardless of *ANY OF THE ABOVE*: How about exercising some common courtesy > and not resort to denigration of another person's knowledge or apparent > skills or lack thereof. You don't like the idea, fine. State why you don't > like it and move on. Don't contribute any code that might address the idea. > The rest? It is not useful. > > SDR > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
