|
Yes.
It might work perfectly, but it isn't
(a) easy to read/understand
(b) commented, and is therefore
(c) not easy to maintain/debug.
I would probably rewrite all the sub-queries as either Views (if reused in the database elsewhere)
or as sub-select statements.
'Howard
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes SQL gets like this. Be nice if they would comment it. If this is in Stored proc they could put comments in the middle of it. Not sure I like seeing dim1,dim2,dim3,dim4. Typically a bad db structure.
Sometimes its the Database that causes stuff to be complicated to query and if you didn't make the schema you have to do your best with it. Don't like to see Expr1 though. Thats sloppy.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. This is a... (crystall ball) report query (Crystal XI?) for an Italian ERP, right?
"Periodo consuntivo budget"? "Ordini di produzione" ? 
Looks like a some kind of analysis of production/orders vs. budget planned.
Sorry for bad Italian... I'm just a Romanian guy that happened to work for an Italian ERP for almost 10 years...
Nuclear launch detected
|
|
|
|
|
MS are not letting you to catch a StackOverFlowException. I wrote a evaluator/interperter using C# 1.1 . The language supports recursion about a year ago I moved to C# 2.0 and only now we found out that a too deep of a recursion throws the application without any notice. It just goes away. A simple factorial like:
fact(n)(if(n == 0,1,n * fact(n-1)))
vaporizes the application at fact(46)
I checked MSDN and it says:
Starting with the .NET Framework version 2.0, a StackOverflowException object cannot be caught by a try-catch block and the corresponding process is terminated by default
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.stackoverflowexception.aspx
On this page they tell you to stay away from unbound recursions. What kind of recommendation is this? Guys stay away from null pointers!!
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
Natza Mitzi wrote: MS are not letting you to catch a StackOverFlowException. I wrote a evaluator/interperter using C# 1.1 . The language supports recursion about a year ago I moved to C# 2.0 and only now we found out that a too deep of a recursion throws the application without any notice. It just goes away. A simple factorial like:
fact(n)(if(n == 0,1,n * fact(n-1)))
vaporizes the application at fact(46)
That's how the CLR works. In fact even a tail recursive language like Scheme will fail on that.
You have 2 options:
1. Increase stack space.
2. Rewrite to use iteration or tail-recursion.
|
|
|
|
|
Natza Mitzi wrote: Guys stay away from null pointers!!
And from people posting on the wrong forum.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: people posting on the wrong forum
Geeze, another one 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, another one.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like a rash of 'em lately 
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
"Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
|
|
|
|
|
I think his point might have been a coding horror on the part of Microsoft.
He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes. He who does not ask a question remains a fool forever. [Chineese Proverb]
Jonathan C Dickinson (C# Software Engineer)
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: And from people posting on the wrong forum.
That throws WrongForumException and UraNoobException, neither of which are derived from StackOverFlowException.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots.
-- Robert Royall
|
|
|
|
|
You either have problems understanding the issue or just happy to jump in with someone that can not understand the issue.
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
Natza Mitzi wrote: Starting with the .NET Framework version 2.0, a StackOverflowException object cannot be caught by a try-catch block and the corresponding process is terminated by default
yes, that is unfortunate. On the other hand, recovering from a stack overflow
in a reliable way is probably rather tricky.
Natza Mitzi wrote: A simple factorial like:
fact(n)(if(n == 0,1,n * fact(n-1)))
vaporizes the application at fact(46)
That is crap. How much does one stack frame take, 100 bytes? 1KB?
Now take 46 of those and your stack has run out???
IIRC the default stack size is 1 MB.
I just ran a little test and 10000! runs just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
I can use a recursive factorial with numbers up to and including 170
Any higher overflows the UInt1024 that I used for it - no StackOverFlowException
So what happened there?
Though I agree that the advice is pointless..
|
|
|
|
|
I think that it depends on:
a) The cost of opening a function on the stack changes
b) Whether the recursion is a tail recursion or not
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
My answer below:
I reduced the occurrence of the problem by splitting some methods and using a dictionary instead of large switches that cause stack bloats. Now a simple recursive factorial method works with 400 instead of 46, that is almost 900% better
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
I reduced the occurrence of the problem by splitting some methods and using a dictionary instead of large switches that cause stack bloats. Now a simple recursive factorial method works with 400 instead of 46, that is almost 900% better
Natza Mitzi
|
|
|
|
|
A while ago I inherited a project that was full of the following :
if( CString( str1 ) == CString( str2 ) )
{
}
That was the most annoying thing for a variety of reasons. I should mention that this was a communications-oriented project and all of the character strings had defined sizes so that as OK but apparently someone had an aversion to the strcmp function. I couldn't believe it. Even when there was an actual CString object, like from a dialog, they would cast the other argument to a CString to do the comparison. I guess they didn't know that CString has a const char * operator. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's typical of people without C background.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: That's typical of people without C background.
I think you mean C++. 
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: think you mean C++.
Well, C is the C++'s background foundation.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
CPallini wrote: Well, C is the C++'s background foundation.
But C has no types (well not like the OP has ).
|
|
|
|
|
leppie wrote: But C has no types
That's precisely my point. 
Only with a (solid maybe) C background he would appreciate the introduced overhead. While, for instance, VB6 people (don't blame me for the cheap shot) maybe used to thinking String is a native type.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
BTW Suppose CString equality operator implemented in a Java-string fashion: possibly the fun would be more.
If the Lord God Almighty had consulted me before embarking upon the Creation, I would have recommended something simpler.
-- Alfonso the Wise, 13th Century King of Castile.
This is going on my arrogant assumptions. You may have a superb reason why I'm completely wrong.
-- Iain Clarke
[My articles]
|
|
|
|
|
Who knows what the compiler and linker will made of this statement. 
I try hard to make parameters const so it can better be optimized. 
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
