|
|
|
|
|
|
by jteppinette
1260 days ago
|
|
|
Because you didn’t actually refute anything the GP said, and gave bad advice, all while being incredibly negative and arrogant. > this mostly clueless advice > strong opinions put forth by someone who doesn't have the necessary experience, or understanding of what's going on under the hood > I'm tired of suchlike n00b advice strongly (and incorrectly and arrogantly) expressed on HN You continue to just say it depends without giving any actual scenarios. You make it sound like magic, but it’s not: “under x and y, do z except when u” is better than “it depends, I’m sick of all these noobs”. Also, your main points are against denormalization and avoiding large table joins which are 100% rational arguments under certain workloads. |
|
|
His was stupid advice and had it should not have been given.
> You continue to just say it depends without giving any actual scenarios
it depends. Use your common sense and then use a stopwatch, is a good start. There are entire shelves of books on this, I won't repeat them.
> You make it sound like magic, but it’s not:
absolutely true!
> “under x and y, do z except when u” is better than
it's a multidimensional problems inc. memory size, disk size, the optimiser, sizes of particular tables joined, where the hotspot is, cost of updates of non-normalised tables, etc. I can't give general advice from here.
> Also, your main points are against denormalization and avoiding large table joins which are 100% rational arguments under certain workloads.
I said "Denormalising is a useful tool that IME rarely gains you more than it loses you,"
I don't accept your criticism.