Newest at the top
| 2024-09-30 00:29:13 +0200 | <geekosaur> | postgres has this thing where it's slower than simpler dbs for small tables, but scales far better than other databases as they get larger and more joins are involved |
| 2024-09-30 00:28:26 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | yes I worked with ppl who denied fks in Postgres in "pursuit" for performance |
| 2024-09-30 00:28:25 +0200 | <hololeap> | the article mentions three different approaches, including nullable columns |
| 2024-09-30 00:27:29 +0200 | <geekosaur> | mariadb is poor |
| 2024-09-30 00:27:06 +0200 | <geekosaur> | depends on the db, really. sqlite will be bad, postgresql should be reasonable |
| 2024-09-30 00:26:40 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | so one approach is to have e.g. "type" column and then several nullable columns, where each subset is for particular type etc etc |
| 2024-09-30 00:26:08 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-09-30 00:26:03 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | hololeap: also, some ppl say that having extra constraints in SQL will make db perform slower. (some even say that Foreign keys make it slow) |
| 2024-09-30 00:25:55 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2024-09-30 00:25:16 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Client Quit) |
| 2024-09-30 00:25:12 +0200 | <hololeap> | ok |
| 2024-09-30 00:25:06 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2024-09-30 00:24:35 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) (Quit: WeeChat 4.1.1) |
| 2024-09-30 00:24:30 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | hololeap: well, this is for SQL, but I rather mention "Categorical Databases" :-) |
| 2024-09-30 00:24:13 +0200 | athan | (~athan@syn-098-153-145-140.biz.spectrum.com) (Quit: Konversation terminated!) |
| 2024-09-30 00:23:42 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2024-09-30 00:22:00 +0200 | <hololeap> | andrewboltachev: https://www.parsonsmatt.org/2019/03/19/sum_types_in_sql.html ? |
| 2024-09-30 00:18:55 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-09-30 00:17:13 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | if I generalize the idea (which I want) and the "generalized table" has also coproducts, e.g. either "pickup" or "delivery" (for a web store like Amazon perhaps) then how do they map coproduct onto Set |
| 2024-09-30 00:16:22 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-09-30 00:15:47 +0200 | machinedgod | (~machinedg@d50-99-47-73.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod |
| 2024-09-30 00:14:54 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | but I believe it only works for them 'cause single "database table" is like a product of fields: (e.g. first_name, last_name, email, password etc) |
| 2024-09-30 00:13:51 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | in, for example "Categorical Databases" by David Spivak et al they talk about a "Database instance" functor C -> Set |
| 2024-09-30 00:13:06 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | coproducts (in ADTs) have been a problem (or main point of interest?) for me in this (bigger) idea that I research |
| 2024-09-30 00:11:20 +0200 | Eoco | (~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco |
| 2024-09-30 00:10:30 +0200 | <dolio> | I.E. functions. |
| 2024-09-30 00:10:25 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | ah |
| 2024-09-30 00:10:21 +0200 | <dolio> | No. Exponentials will. |
| 2024-09-30 00:09:57 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | dolio: Maybe coproduct will give rise for contravariant functors in the idea you've given |
| 2024-09-30 00:09:22 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | https://app.diagrams.net/#G1lKco0mv66sGjTyMSMU1g-ogSE5PIbdzc#%7B%22pageId%22%3A%22YBh8yTivGdvy1ecIg6Zf%22%7D |
| 2024-09-30 00:08:09 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds) |
| 2024-09-30 00:06:40 +0200 | <dolio> | But all the examples were covariant functors. |
| 2024-09-30 00:06:12 +0200 | <dolio> | Also, depending on what exactly you want to do, you might need not just numbers, but lists indicating whether the argument is covariant or contravariant, and so on. |
| 2024-09-30 00:06:09 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) |
| 2024-09-30 00:04:34 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | Yes. thanks a lot for the idea! I'll research it |
| 2024-09-30 00:03:57 +0200 | <dolio> | Yes. But what you're talking about is assembling many different arities of functors into a single category. So that requires having some way of relating different arities to make any sense. |
| 2024-09-30 00:03:07 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn |
| 2024-09-30 00:02:26 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | ok F is a functor. that's how we make a functor from more than one set to one essentially |
| 2024-09-30 00:01:45 +0200 | <dolio> | A functor. |
| 2024-09-30 00:01:10 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | dolio: well, Set^3 is a category of triplets like (a, a', a'') |
| 2024-09-30 00:01:03 +0200 | tromp | (~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…) |
| 2024-09-29 23:59:28 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | dolio: so, is n a number (e.g. 3) and Set^3 -> Set a function from three sets to one? |
| 2024-09-29 23:57:11 +0200 | <andrewboltachev> | ncf: no. just trying to proof that I made something real, not just idea |
| 2024-09-29 23:54:15 +0200 | <dolio> | Anyhow, something like that is a possibility. |
| 2024-09-29 23:54:02 +0200 | <dolio> | Possibly with some kind of naturality involved. |
| 2024-09-29 23:53:34 +0200 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) ChaiTRex |
| 2024-09-29 23:53:22 +0200 | <dolio> | You can create a category where objects are pairs (n, F : Set^n -> Set). Then, an arrow (m, F) -> (n, G) explains how to select a list of n sets from a list of m sets, together something that maps F applied to the m sets to G applied to the n sets selected in the first part. |
| 2024-09-29 23:53:13 +0200 | ChaiTRex | (~ChaiTRex@user/chaitrex) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2024-09-29 23:52:35 +0200 | merijn | (~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 265 seconds) |
| 2024-09-29 23:52:33 +0200 | <ncf> | are we supposed to read these 2759 lines to understand this "intuitively very clear" thing you're talking about? |