Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Discuss the meaning of "relational". #367

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jd-foster
Copy link
Contributor

Based on the nice suggested change of @chbrandt in #353, since the block on "relational database" is somewhat vague and confusing.


Co-authored-by: Carlos H Brandt [email protected]

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 12, 2023

Thank you!

Thank you for your pull request 😃

🤖 This automated message can help you check the rendered files in your submission for clarity. If you have any questions, please feel free to open an issue in {sandpaper}.

If you have files that automatically render output (e.g. R Markdown), then you should check for the following:

  • 🎯 correct output
  • 🖼️ correct figures
  • ❓ new warnings
  • ‼️ new errors

Rendered Changes

🔍 Inspect the changes: https://github.com/datacarpentry/sql-ecology-lesson/compare/md-outputs..md-outputs-PR-367

The following changes were observed in the rendered markdown documents:

 00-sql-introduction.md | 7 ++++++-
 md5sum.txt             | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
What does this mean?

If you have source files that require output and figures to be generated (e.g. R Markdown), then it is important to make sure the generated figures and output are reproducible.

This output provides a way for you to inspect the output in a diff-friendly manner so that it's easy to see the changes that occur due to new software versions or randomisation.

⏱️ Updated at 2023-10-12 01:24:07 +0000

github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2023
github-actions bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 12, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@adamancer adamancer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for working on this! I'm on the fence about these changes. I think the clarifications could be useful, but to me the real problem with this section is how dense the preceding definition block is. Keys could probably have their own definition block, for example, along with the short paragraph about how they are used to establish/enforce relationships between tables.

Comment on lines +119 to +120
In many small datasets we have only a few tables and we don't have to think about cross-references within datasets.
The idea of *relational data* becomes more and more important as the amount and complexity of data grows. This provides the motivation for using relational databases: to organize data through related keys.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is getting into the rationale for using relational databases--would it make sense to put these lines under "Why use relational databases" below?

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The *relational* concept is connected with organizing information across multiple tables in the database.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The phrase "is connected with" feels vague, and I'm not sure that this sentence adds anything beyond what's in 118. I'd consider omitting it.

@jd-foster
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks for the review. I need to think further on how to organise the flow.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants