Discussion » cal uses big words

This is a read-only copy. The forum ran on iamcal.com from 2000 until its database was lost in 2016, and this topic was rebuilt from copies saved by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine. Some replies may be missing, and its dates are approximate.
Posted by ellipse, around April 2006:
 
Database War Stories 3: Flickr

i wonder when cal says denormalization he uses a 'z' or an 's'
Posted by Brock, around April 2006:
 
Doesn't matter. The word is entirely made up anyway.

/me growls
Posted by ellipse, around April 2006:
 
but's in wikipedia so it must be real
Posted by frankie_DUPE1, around April 2006:
 
Another made up word that makes me want to cry is 'impactful' although a quick search on dictionary.com shows that it's made it into Webster's New Millennium™ Dictionary of English, Preview Edition (v 0.9.6).

The marketing department at my old company made me put it in the rubbish wesbite i made them :/
Posted by Mathos, around April 2006:
 
- account disabled -
Posted by Grim..., around April 2006:
 
apnews.myway.com/article/20...

A massive language research database responsible for bringing words such as "podcast" and "celebutante" to the pages of the Oxford dictionaries has officially hit a total of 1 billion words, researchers said Wednesday.
Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around April 2006:
 
normalisation is a database design technique, essentially the process of extracting/making explicit the relationships within data. or, looking at it the other way round, grouping like with like. trouble is, to get the data back into a form you need for processing, you quite often have to resolve one or more relationships algorithmically/seekingly, which sucks time. so you hardwire relationships INTO your data/re-bundle separate groupings if you start to hurt on the performance. it's the data-equivalent of unrolling loops -- take the stress off the machine and put it on the programmer.

i always design to full normalisation then backtrack key "optimisation" tables, and if possible keep them as duplicated data periodically refreshed from the fully-normalised copy. best of both worlds.
Posted by Saltation_DUPE1, around April 2006:
 
> Websters

i thought WE were all websters. aren't we on the internet? isn't THIS an internet site?

we're websters.
Posted by syl_DUPE1, around April 2006:
 
We be webbies.