Complex Joins



  • I've been scanning the job sites and I noticed the latest trend.

    Must be able to write complex joins

    Is it just me, or WTF?

    What does this mean exactly? What is a "complex" join? I've done all sort of INNER, OUTER, LEFT, RIGHT etc. joins and dealt with some seriously "complex" stored procedures. None of it was rocket science. Any trained chimp could figure it out.

    So what are they referring to? What makes a join so "complex"? And if this is the latest thing to make candidates stand out, boy am I in good shape. (Think $$$)  I didn't realize there was such a severe need for stored procedure writers.



  • You should never underestimate the incompetence of other people. Too many so-called programmers barely manage to write a simple (=2 tables inner) join at all.



  • To tell the truth, I'm not SQL-experienced enough to fully comprehend and appreciate the differences between inner outer left, cross and right.

    But only because I've never been in a situation where I've had to do anything but inner join. Data in table 1, data in table 2, FK, and join join join and whee usable recordset.

    So I'd probably fail that job requirement. :)



  • @dhromed said:

    To tell the truth, I'm not SQL-experienced enough to fully comprehend and appreciate the differences between inner outer left, cross and right.

    But only because I've never been in a situation where I've had to do anything but inner join. Data in table 1, data in table 2, FK, and join join join and whee usable recordset.

    So I'd probably fail that job requirement. :)

    Are you phishing for SQL guidance? :)



  • @dhromed said:

    To tell the truth, I'm not SQL-experienced enough to fully comprehend and appreciate the differences between inner outer left, cross and right.

    It's okay, the difference was largely made up to enable people to sound smart. They are all specific instances of the more general case of joins, and the general case is actually simpler. The various specific cases don't serve much real purpose. Talking about them is much like talking about class A, B, and C addresses in ipv4 - the whole concept is a historical mistake and largely obsolete.



  • @RaspenJho said:

    Are you phishing for SQL guidance? :)

    Not (ex|im)plicitly, but if you're sellin', I'm buyin'. :3

    @asuffield said:

    It's
    okay, the difference was largely made up to enable people to sound
    smart. They are all specific instances of the more general case of
    joins, and the general case is actually simpler. The various specific
    cases don't serve much real purpose. Talking about them is much like
    talking about class A, B, and C addresses in ipv4 - the whole concept
    is a historical mistake and largely obsolete.

    I knew it!

     



  • @dhromed said:

    Not (ex|im)plicitly

    Since explicit and implicit are opposites, wouldn't that statement be either an oxymoron or a tautology?



  • @PSWorx said:

    @dhromed said:

    Not (ex|im)plicitly

    Since explicit and implicit are opposites, wouldn't that statement be either an oxymoron or a tautology?

     

    Obviously not. You can do something implicetly, or explicitely, or not at all (aka FILE_NOT_FOUND). 



  • @PSWorx said:

    @dhromed said:

    Not (ex|im)plicitly

    Since explicit and implicit are opposites, wouldn't that statement be either an oxymoron or a tautology?

    Between themselves, they are opposites, but in the larger system, they are consecutive levels of the same thing, and I envision the discrete levels as such:

    -1. not being present in the discussion
    0. not communicating
    1. communicating implicitly
    2. communicating explicitly
    3. shouting really really hard and hitting people over the head with heavy things



  • @dhromed said:

    Between themselves, they are opposites, but in the larger system, they are consecutive levels of the same thing, and I envision the discrete levels as such:

    -1. not being present in the discussion
    0. not communicating
    1. communicating implicitly
    2. communicating explicitly
    3. shouting really really hard and hitting people over the head with heavy things



    WIN!!!111!!oneone1!

    [i]I need to quit looking at ICHC so much...[/i]



  • @dhromed said:

    @PSWorx said:
    @dhromed said:

    Not (ex|im)plicitly

    Since explicit and implicit are opposites, wouldn't that statement be either an oxymoron or a tautology?

    Between themselves, they are opposites, but in the larger system, they are consecutive levels of the same thing, and I envision the discrete levels as such:

    -1. not being present in the discussion
    0. not communicating
    1. communicating implicitly
    2. communicating explicitly
    3. shouting really really hard and hitting people over the head with heavy things

    1. Subliminal (releasing a popular song with the message backwards)
    2. normal/"liminal", i guess (just saying it)
    3. Superliminal (HEY, YOU! JOIN THE NAVY!) 



  • Complex joins??? - maybe they want the guy who wrote this....

    That should be complex enough for anybody.



  • "All candidates must have solid SQL coding skills and the ability to set up and manipulate multi-table databases." -- From a job ad.

    Just spotted this little gem. Surely if you got any SQL skills at all, you'll be able to manipulate a multi-table database? Could it be that the absolute limit of a lot of people out there who claim to be programmers is "select * from table where column=whatever", and "complex joins" just means someone who can do any join at all.



  • What is the value of a DB with 1 table?

    Expressed in # of reasonably new Ati video cards?



  • @dhromed said:

    What is the value of a DB with 1 table?

    Expressed in # of reasonably new Ati video cards?

    Nice.

    Just because it's a cool number, I think the number of Ati cards which represents the value of a DB with one table is the number of cards such that its absolute value is negative 1.

    (Look up "perplex numbers" for more information.  I like the fact that it's called the "hallucinatory" instead of "imaginary"....) 


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Ixpah said:

    Could it be that the absolute limit of a lot of people out there who claim to be programmers is "select \1 from table where column=whatever", and "complex joins" just means someone who can do any join at all.

    It is. I've interviewed some of them.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.