|
Don't you mean <LF> ?
Member 15353828 wrote: not really earth-shattering
Uh, yeah it is, to we who load data from files all day.
|
|
|
|
|
For nitpickers like you, I mean <cr><lf>.
Btw. let me also be nitpicking... Your statement: "IDs should never be sortable. It must be a meaningless operation.", see your post The Lounge[^]
*lol*... Happy surviving with that. 'Not sortable' means also 'not able to make an index on it'. Think about it and why your DBs are that slow
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 15353828 wrote: 'Not sortable' means also 'not able to make an index on it'.
No, it does not.
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, then please explain how to index a thing you can't enumerate. Please ...
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Who says you can't enumerate it? Of course you can enumerate it.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but enumerable means sortable... in case you say no to that, then I doubt your statements
[Edit] sorry, I'm not native English
but enumerable means implicitly also sortable, at least for me
[/Edit]
[Edit1]
But maybe because of my lack of English I misinterpreted your statement, mentioned above. In case that happens, sorry.
For me everyting is 'sortable' because we can introduce for everyting our 'sort rule'
[/Edit1]
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope.
enumerable
ADJECTIVE
mathematics
able to be counted by one-to-one correspondence with the set of all positive integers.
|
|
|
|
|
Rather than all the arguing, how about you explain your statement that ids should not be sortable.
|
|
|
|
|
You have omitted the keyword meaningfully from the quote.
An ID is a substitute key. It should not have a meaning.
It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons, which is sortable per definition but the order has no meaning, it could just as well be a GUID.
<edit>my bad, I see the quote has been edited
|
|
|
|
|
"It's usually an incremented integer for practical reasons" ... which is also the badest thing for an index (usually implemented as somtehing like a binary tree) because each increment does need to reorganice the tree.
Anyway: Everything is sortable, either because we can do it on a binary representation or if not possible (what most probably will never be the case) one can introduce our self defined sorting.
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs.
Member 15353828 wrote: Everything is sortable
Nope.
|
|
|
|
|
'If by "badest", you mean "worst", then I agree, integers are a poor choice for IDs'
On this I think we come closer, more I think we are on the same line.
"Everything is sortable": Nope
Please give me an idea what is not sortable.
Minor: And sorry I have no idea about how to responde something 'quoted'. Thats why I put the quotes in italic. And also pay attention, I'm not native English therefore the chance of missunderstanding is always present
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, only intersting on facts.
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
These are facts. Not everything is sortable.
|
|
|
|
|
Everything -any data you catch with a computer- ends in a stream of bits which is sortable. Please explain whehre I'm wrong in case I'm wrong, which is not the case....
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but that's not "everything" -- it's only representations of things and labels for things within a computer. It also meets the criteria of not being meaningfully sortable.
|
|
|
|
|
I give up, but I like to mention again you did not show an example which is 'not sortable'
So it be
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I have given a few examples twice now. I'm done too.
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: which is sortable per definitio Exactly.
Jörgen Andersson wrote: but the order has no meaning, Ah, I see. So you are saying that the order of IDs have no meaning.
They do tell you when a record was created relative to another, but otherwise, sure, I think I get what you are saying.
|
|
|
|
|
If that is the way IDs are allocated. In other words: A special case. Such special cases do exist - but are special cases nevertheless.
In a de-duplicating file system, a page or file (depending on which level de-duplication is done) usually have an ID given by the hash of the page/file contents. In other systems, partial series of IDs may be reserved by sub-authorities - this is common for ISDN reservations by book publishers, or phone number series allocated to different phone companies. The sub-authority may split the reservation into sub-series: I know of phone companies allocating numbers from different series to business or private customers. In many regions, an alphatbetic prefix on the car registration plate indicate home town or county; the numeric part is not unique, and cars from different locations cannot be ordered in age by it. Within the lowest level sub-sub-sub series, IDs might be allocated in order, but maybe not. Eg. IDs used earlier (like phone numbers or car license plates) may, after a quarantine period of non-usage, be allocated to another object.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope
Enumarable is also A,B,C and also chinese characters are also kind of sortable.
And btw. A,B,C was invented before ascii code
Sorry, I think you can't explain where I'm wrong. I case you can then please: Do it and do it with math background. Thanks, and I'm not interested in fights, I'm only interested on facts.
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Crayons are enumerable, cows are enumerable, photographs are enumerable, grains of sand on a beach are enumerable, are they sortable?
|
|
|
|
|
Any answer with facts?
modified 9-Oct-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
How do you sort images of cows or complex numbers?
|
|
|
|