Jump to content
Larry Ullman's Book Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About MikeMikeMike

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. It`s fairly obvious to me who was likely snooping for my private information, but there`s no point naming names because they`d just deny it. It`s obvious to me because the person must have read the post I did last week about SSL, where I posted the link to the site, and then, this week, they remembered that I had posted the link there once they became curious about me following the mildly testy exchanges in the threads this week where Larry claimed Matt had posted the correct answer, and I refused to acknowledge it. My Godaddy records show that my WhoIs info was checked on this week on the
  2. Actually, I misunderstood the database. It`s not even true that each coffee is available only in one size, so Larry wasn`t created limited functionality (i.e. each coffee only in one size) for teaching purposes This discussion was moot.
  3. Yesterday, in one of my posts the issue came up of being a "stranger" in the forum. Larry, quite rightly, said to me that he doesn't know anything about me and referred to me as a "stranger". Really, none of us know anything about each other. However, it doesn't have to remain that way, and I think that people here don't want it to remain that way. Let me explain. It so happens that I just learned about a service that GoDaddy offers. They allow you to check whether anyone has been doing WhoIs searches on your domain names. For example, i can find out how many WhoIs searches (which
  4. This is of course Larry's choice, but as a bit of feedback for him, I find it a little odd. For example, Larry spends quite a bit of time explaining very simple PHP concepts and code that he explained in his first two books. However, in those other books, he didn't (to my recollection) create more involved databases where we got exposure to the best practices and strategies behind linking tables, which, in my opinion, requires more explanation than some of the simple php in this book. Therefore, he seems (in my opinion) to assume readers know the more difficult information (which re
  5. Thanks for your input Terry. I totally understand that the features of the store might be limited in an example store. I just wanted to clarify if that's actually what's happening here, because I'm trying to learn the SQL as we go. Elsewhere in the forum Larry has said that each coffee was available in 5 sizes. The one size_id for each specific coffee seemed to contradict that.
  6. Thanks Hartley. I am unfortunately still mystified. You say that you generally put the path to the image, but in this code, Larry doesn`t put the path (as far as I can tell). Just a name of the image (unless it is of course the actual image) Can anyone explain, if it is just the name of the image, what is the value of putting only the name into the database, and where, in this application, does it connect to the actual image? INSERT INTO 'non_coffee_categories` (`category`, `description`, `image`) VALUES ('Edibles', 'A wonderful assortment of goodies to eat...', 'goodies.jpg'
  7. I am using PHP 5.26 nd mysql 5.0 This question was originally posted at the bottom of another thread, but as it`s actually a new question, I thought it better to post a new thread (so I erased the question from the other thread) This may be an easy question, but I found my assumption to be rather illogical (as I will explain below) so I thought I would ask. Why, in the specific_coffees table, does each coffee only have one size_id? Does that mean that each coffee is only available in one size? If not, which rationale did Larry use to assign a specific size_id to a specific cof
  8. Thank you Larry for explaining. If I don`t understand something, I have to say it, and to be honest, I don`t think the contradiction between Larry`s answr and Matt`s (as detailed in my last post) was adequately explained.
  9. @Hartley, With respect, I disagree that Matt was correct on the other thread. Using Larry`s answer on that other thread, I show why Matt`s answer was incorrect. Matt was correct about the basic theory (which I wasn`t asking) but when He tried to explain the result, Larry`s answer shows he was 100% incorrect.
  10. Larry, Thank you for answering the post with a clear explanation. By mentioning in your post that you are giving free advice to strangers, it makes you sound a little upset. The only reason I asked is because your books (which I bought) encourage me to ask questions here if I don`t understand, so I`m a little disappointed to get this put back in my face. Yes, i am a stranger, but I am also a customer and your books encourage me to post here. I don`t think it`s a good business practice to refer to your customers that way, especially when you encourage them to come to your forums. But
  11. @Larry I will do more reading up on it as you suggest, but I wonder if you might detail a specific example I have another post on this forum (Post where I ask how ON s.id = sc.size_id limits the results of the query from 30 to 10 with no duplicates. Looking at these tables, I see that the SC table uses a key for size_id. If you have time, and inclination to answer that other post (someone has tried unsuccessfully so far), could you also explain, using this example, how that query`s performance was enhanced using the key size_id? For example, was this key necessary to help
  12. Unfortunately, I'm almost 100% sure you're not right. With this On staement ON gc.id = sc.general_coffee_id In the SQL (along with the WHERE general_coffee id =3), but this ON statement ON s.id = sc.size_id ommitted from the SQL query, there are 30 results with duplicates of the SKUs, therefore this SQL ON gc.id = sc.general_coffee_id WHERE general_coffee_id =3 does not limit the query to 10 results. It gets all ten types of specific coffees (which is obvious because there are only 10 types) but it also allows for duplicate records of the returns, which is 30. This code
  13. Thanks for trying, but you didn't answer the question that I was trying to ask. it's my fault for not being clear enough I understand the general purpose of ON. However, I didn't understand how this PARTICULAR ON worked in this instance. Namely, why does useing the limit of ON s.id = sc.size_id produce a result with 10skus and none of them repeated. In order to answer this question, you would probably have to look at those tables (see images below), and not just the theory behind ON. In other words, I looked at those tables, and I never would have thought that creating a query
  14. UPDATE: note, to save you some time reading, you may want to read my next post (the third post on this thread) instead. After Matt responded to the OP, I realized that the OP might not be clear enough, because Matt answers a question that I wasn't trying to ask. In the third post below, I hopefully make the question clearer. In an effort to better understand this SQL quoted below (which is from page 196), I ran this SQL twice, except the second time I ran it, I removed from line 4 this code ON s.id = sc.size_id the first time I ran it, there were 10 results, with 10 different SKU
  • Create New...