You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
H
Harlan Grove
[email protected] wrote...
And what do you suppose all those asterisks before many of the Excel
function names mean? Same as Excel function support under MDX? (What'll
be next, XMD or XDM?) If so, that means they're NOT SUPPORTED. So, if I
needed LinEst or MMult, I'd continue using Excel. You'd do something
different in no small part because you have no clue what these
functions do.
And what do you suppose all those asterisks before many of the Excel
function names mean? Same as Excel function support under MDX? (What'll
be next, XMD or XDM?) If so, that means they're NOT SUPPORTED. So, if I
needed LinEst or MMult, I'd continue using Excel. You'd do something
different in no small part because you have no clue what these
functions do.
D
dbahooker
I dont give a shit what they do; there's never been anything in the
database world that stumps me
the basic math that you do in excel deserves to be in a database
database world that stumps me
the basic math that you do in excel deserves to be in a database
H
Harlan Grove
[email protected] wrote...
That's the problem with militant ignorance like yours - it's so stupid
it believes it's a virtue.
Maybe nothing in the database world stumps you because no one tries to
do anything particularly complex numerically in the database world. The
fact that Excel's more advanced numeric functions aren't in the
database world tends to support the case that there are some things
databases can't do.
Yes, the *basic* math I do could be done in a database. It's the
intermediate to advanced calculations that require more numerically
capable software.
I dont give a shit what they do; there's never been anything in the
database world that stumps me
That's the problem with militant ignorance like yours - it's so stupid
it believes it's a virtue.
Maybe nothing in the database world stumps you because no one tries to
do anything particularly complex numerically in the database world. The
fact that Excel's more advanced numeric functions aren't in the
database world tends to support the case that there are some things
databases can't do.
the basic math that you do in excel deserves to be in a database
Yes, the *basic* math I do could be done in a database. It's the
intermediate to advanced calculations that require more numerically
capable software.
D
dbahooker
rofl
every bit of math in the world can be broken into queries and
subqueries
every bit of math in the world can be broken into queries and
subqueries
H
Harlan Grove
[email protected] wrote...
....
Everything can be boiled down to 4 operator arithmetic, but (1) it's
grossly inefficient to do so, and (2) you'd have no clue how to
represent even exponentiation to fractional powers or logarithms using
just +, -, *, /. Since queries and subqueries are the only way to
render mathematical expressions in SQL, you're correct in theory, but
as usual your database suggestions would be so inefficient that no one
other than you would try to follow them.
....
....every bit of math in the world can be broken into queries and
subqueries
Everything can be boiled down to 4 operator arithmetic, but (1) it's
grossly inefficient to do so, and (2) you'd have no clue how to
represent even exponentiation to fractional powers or logarithms using
just +, -, *, /. Since queries and subqueries are the only way to
render mathematical expressions in SQL, you're correct in theory, but
as usual your database suggestions would be so inefficient that no one
other than you would try to follow them.