You re not stupid, python's packaging & versionning is PITA. as long as you write it for yourself, you re good. As soon as you want to share it, you have a problem
I would say Redox is miles ahead of Minix, am I wrong?
Don't write "if" in your tests! It makes very, very little sense: how is that, you test your application and you are unsure what is the resulting outcome of a call? Is it depending on arguments? Then fix the argument, and expect 1 specific result. Is it depending on environment? Fix/mock the environment.
No "ifs" in the tests!
Okey that definitely explains it
Banned for being linked to Russian state, or for being Russian? Lol those are very very different
I am mostly complaining about his writing style. Obviously the subject itself is interesting (to some people)
I wouldn't bet my eye on it, but who knows!.. Maybe he was a better teacher before!
Again, Knuth himself said in a preface that Volumes 2 through 5 are independent.
That sounds interesting, will take a look. I am not against theoretical computer science, i just think Knuth doesn't reads like a good teacher..
Because volume 1 is not available in the library
Edit: but also the volumes aren't not dependent on each other. They treat very different topics, i doubt reading Volume 1 will help with Volume 4.
The title. I have read many technical books (mostly compilation, programming languages & automata) , blogs and whatnot, and recently borrowed the above mentioned book Volume4 (combinatorial problems) from a local library. Just to give a try since Knuth is such a respected person in computer science.
It is by far the most frustrating and maddening book i ever laid my eyes upon. The author doesn't make the slightest effort to explain why something is useful, changes examples before explaining why previous example is interesting or how it shows why X is useful. On page 8, he says that "Graeco Latin squares allowed to François Cretté de Palluel to do with 16 sheeps, what otherwise would require 64 sheeps". How & why ?? No fucking clue. I know i am not the smartest person on earth, but i would love a little hand holding here, you know to explain a concept he introduced 2 pages previously, and gave 3 random anecdotes about.
The writing style is a complete opposite of what I (and I believe, what are most people ) am expecting. If you know something, it won't be useful, and you don't know something : don't count on the book for explanation. I had the physical urge to slap Knuth. It's absolutely maddening.
He then goes on his little hobby to gather 5 letter-English-words, and gives some fancy looking graphs with fancy names (3 cubes, Petterson graph, Chvatal graph). For all what i know, it could be graphs called 42 and graph Blabla. Again no clue how it's useful, nor why it's interesting. He introduces some definitions and theorems.
I am on page 26 (thr book is thicker than a bible) i think i am done. This book will not make you a better programmer, i have no idea who and for what reason could possibly find it useful?
If you think i am overreacting and should continue reading, please tell me so, but i don't expect it to get better
I don't understand why this is called a "subset", while clearly containing new syntax
A subset would be understood by older compilers, this is a superset
Absolutely not a replacement to VBA. Not even close. As usual, Microsoft hypes something everyone wants, and then implements something nobody asked
This a much better done meme
The other one before makes zero sense
2100 parameters is a documented ODBC limitation( which applies on all statements in a batch)
This means that a
"insert into (c1, c2) values (?,?), (?,?)..." can only have 2100 bound parameters, and has nothing to do with code, and even less that surrounding code is "spaghetti"
The tables ARE normalised, the fact that there are 50 colums is because underlying market - data calibration functions expects dozens of parameters, and returns back dozens of other results, such as volatility, implied durations, forward duration and more
The amount of immaturity, inexperience, and ignorance coming from 2 people here is astounding
Blocked
I timed the transaction and opening of the connection, it takes maybe a 100 milliseconds, absolutely doesn't explain ghe abysmal performance
Transaction is needed because 2 tables are touched, i don't want to deal with partially inserted data
Cannot share the code, but it's python calling .NET through "clr", and using SqlBulkCopy
What do you suggest i shouldn't be using that? It's either a prepared query, with thousands of parameters, or a plain text string with parameters inside (which admittedly, i didn't try, might be faster lol)
Will try bcp & report back EDIT: I can't install bcp because it is only distributed with SQLServer itself, and I cannot install it on my corporate laptop.
I will try bcp. Somehow, i was convinced I had to have access to the machine running the sql server to use it, but from the doca i see i can specify a remote host.. Will report back! EDIT: I can't install bcp because it is only distributed with SQLServer itself, and I cannot install it on my corporate laptop.
Please enlighten us? You barely know anything about the system or usage, and you have deduced nosql is better? Lol
Omg it's sooo daammmn slooow it takes around 30 seconds to bulk - insert 15000 rows
Disabling indices doesn't help. Database log is at SIMPLE. My table is 50 columns wide, and from what i understand the main reason is the stupid limit of 2100 parameters in query in ODBC driver. I am using the . NET SqlBulkCopy. I only open the connection + transaction once per ~15000 inserts
I have 50 millions rows to insert, it takes literally days, please send help, i can fucking write with a pen and paper faster than damned Microsoft driver inserts rows
Are you doing data science? Statistics? No?
Then for god's sake don't use pandas, you just look dumb af when you pull several MB of a package just to load csv. If you find yourself doing that, just stop programming and look for another job
Thanks for attention