Search Results

Search found 59569 results on 2383 pages for 'data theory'.

Page 50/2383 | < Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >

• Is ORM an Anti-Pattern?

  - by derphil

  I had a very stimulating and interessting discussion with a colleague about ORM and it's Pros and Cons. In my opinion, an ORM is useful only in the rarest cases. At least in my experience. But I don't want to list my own arguments at this time. So I ask you, what do you think about ORM? What are the Pros and the Cons? P.S. I've posted this "question" yesterday on Stackoverflow, but some of the user think, that this should better posted here.

  Read the article

• How to recover data from NTFS partition that was made into a Swap partition?

  - by Raghav Mehta

  I have extremely important stuff on my windows partition which during the ubuntu 10.10 installation,when it said that I should create something called swap space, I selected it to be a swap space (without even knowing what it actually meant) The Grub2 doesn't show up so I don't get a choice to boot Ubuntu or Windows. I don't get my windows partition as a removable device in Ubuntu either. When I go to disk utility and select the sda2 (i.e.. my windows partition) and click edit partition and select HPFS/NTFS for the type and tick bootable and click OK the small processing sign keep on rotating on the bottom right of the sda2 in the chart and after about 10 to 15 minutes it gives an unknown error and thus, I am still unable to use my windows. I am even worse than a beginner who doesn't know a thing about Ubuntu so please be patient and help me out.

  Read the article

• Swiss Re increases data warehouse performance and deploys in record time

  - by KLaker

  Great information on yet another data warehouse deployment on Exadata. A little background on Swiss Re: In 2002, Swiss Re established a data warehouse for its client markets and products to gather reinsurance information across all organizational units into an integrated structure. The data warehouse provided the basis for reporting at the group level with drill-down capability to individual contracts, while facilitating application integration and data exchange by using common data standards. Initially focusing on property and casualty reinsurance information only, it now includes life and health reinsurance, insurance, and nonlife insurance information. Key highlights of the benefits that Swiss Re achieved by using Exadata: Reduced the time to feed the data warehouse and generate data marts by 58% Reduced average runtime by 24% for standard reports comfortably loading two data warehouse refreshes per day with incremental feeds Freed up technical experts by significantly minimizing time spent on tuning activities Most importantly this was one of the fastest project deployments in Swiss Re's history. They went from installation to production in just four months! What is truly surprising is the that it only took two weeks between power-on to testing the machine with full data volumes! Business teams at Swiss Re are now able to fully exploit up-to-date analytics across property, casualty, life, health insurance, and reinsurance lines to identify successful products. These points are highlighted in the following quotes from Dr. Stephan Gutzwiller, Head of Data Warehouse Services at Swiss Re:  "We were operating a complete Oracle stack, including servers, storage area network, operating systems, and databases that was well optimized and delivered very good performance over an extended period of time. When a hardware replacement was scheduled for 2012, Oracle Exadata was a natural choice—and the performance increase was impressive. It enabled us to deliver analytics to our internal customers faster, without hiring more IT staff" “The high quality data that is readily available with Oracle Exadata gives us the insight and agility we need to cater to client needs. We also can continue re-engineering to keep up with the increasing demand without having to grow the organization. This combination creates excellent business value.” Our full press release is available here: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/customers/customersearch/swiss-re-1-exadata-ss-2050409.html. If you want more information about how Exadata can increase the performance of your data warehouse visit our home page: http://www.oracle.com/us/products/database/exadata-database-machine/overview/index.html

  Read the article

• Does using structure data semantic LocalBusiness schema markup work for local EMD URL's?

  - by ElHaix

  Based on what I have read about Google's recent Panda and Penguin updates, I'm getting the impression that using semantic markup may help improve SEO results. On a EMD (exact match domain) site, that may have been hit, we list location-based products. We are now going to be adding a itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" to each product, with relevant details. However, that product may be available in Los Angeles and also in appear in a Seattle results page. We could add a LocalBusiness item type on each geo page to define the geo location for that page. While the definition states: A particular physical business or branch of an organization. Examples of LocalBusiness include a restaurant, a particular branch of a restaurant chain, a branch of a bank, a medical practice, a club, a bowling alley, etc. We could add use the location property which would simply include the city/state details. I realize that this looks like it is meant for a physical location, however could this be done without seeming black-hat?

  Read the article

• Functional testing in the verification

  - by user970696

  Yesterday my question How come verification does not include actual testing? created a lot of controversy, yet did not reveal the answer for related and very important question: does black box functional testing done by testers belong to verification or validation? ISO 12207:12208 here mentiones testing explicitly only as a validation activity, however, it speaks about validation of requirements of the intended use. For me its more high level, like UAT test cases written by business users ISO mentioned above does not mention any specific verification (7.2.4.3.2)except for Requirement verification, Design verification, Document and Code & Integration verification. The last two can be probably thought as unit and integrated testing. But where is then the regular testing done by testers at the end of the phase? The book I mentioned in the original question mentiones that verification is done by static techniques, yet on the V model graph it describes System testing against high level description as a verification, mentioning it includes all kinds of testing like functional, load etc. In the IEEE standard for V&V, you can read this: Even though the tests and evaluations are not part of the V&V processes, the techniques described in this standard may be useful in performing them. So that is different than in ISO, where validation mentiones testing as the activity. Not to mention a lot of contradicting information on the net. I would really appreciate a reference to e.g. a standard in the answer or explanation of what I missed in the ISO. For me, I am unable to tell where the testers work belong.

  Read the article

• Free Webinar - Using Enterprise Data Integration Dashboards

  - by andyleonard

  Join Kent Bradshaw and me as we present Using Enterprise Data Integration Dashboards Tuesday 11 Dec 2012 at 10:00 AM ET! If data is the life of the modern organization, data integration is the heart of an enterprise. Data circulation is vital. Data integration dashboards provide enterprise ETL (Extract, Transform, and Load) teams near-real-time status supported with historical performance analysis. Join Linchpins Kent Bradshaw and Andy Leonard as they demonstrate and discuss the benefits of data...(read more)

  Read the article

• How many copies are needed to enlarge an array?

  - by user10326

  I am reading an analysis on dynamic arrays (from the Skiena's algorithm manual). I.e. when we have an array structure and each time we are out of space we allocate a new array of double the size of the original. It describes the waste that occurs when the array has to be resized. It says that (n/2)+1 through n will be moved at most once or not at all. This is clear. Then by describing that half the elements move once, a quarter of the elements twice, and so on, the total number of movements M is given by: This seems to me that it adds more copies than actually happen. E.g. if we have the following: array of 1 element +--+ |a | +--+ double the array (2 elements) +--++--+ |a ||b | +--++--+ double the array (4 elements) +--++--++--++--+ |a ||b ||c ||c | +--++--++--++--+ double the array (8 elements) +--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+ |a ||b ||c ||c ||x ||x ||x ||x | +--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+ double the array (16 elements) +--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+ |a ||b ||c ||c ||x ||x ||x ||x || || || || || || || || | +--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--++--+ We have the x element copied 4 times, c element copied 4 times, b element copied 4 times and a element copied 5 times so total is 4+4+4+5 = 17 copies/movements. But according to formula we should have 1*(16/2)+2*(16/4)+3*(16/8)+4*(16/16)= 8+8+6+4=26 copies of elements for the enlargement of the array to 16 elements. Is this some mistake or the aim of the formula is to provide a rough upper limit approximation? Or am I missunderstanding something here?

  Read the article

• At what point should data be sent back to server?

  - by whamsicore

  A good example would be the stackexchange "rate" button. When a post is upvoted the arrow changes color immediately. However there is a grace period for one to edit one's vote decision (oops! voted by mistake?). Is the upvote action processed immediately or does is only process after a set time period, or when the user leaves the page? How exactly is this rating processed? What is the standard for handling dynamic page edits (e.g. stackexchange rating, facebook posts?)

  Read the article

• How does the "Fourth Dimension" work with arrays?

  - by Questionmark

  Abstract: So, as I understand it (although I have a very limited understanding), there are three dimensions that we (usually) work with physically: The 1st would be represented by a line. The 2nd would be represented by a square. The 3rd would be represented by a cube. Simple enough until we get to the 4th -- It is kinda hard to draw in a 3D space, if you know what I mean... Some people say that it has something to do with time. The Question: Now, that is all great with me. My question isn't about this, or I'd be asking it on MathSO or PhysicsSO. My question is: How does the computer handle this with arrays? I know that you can create 4D, 5D, 6D, etc... arrays in many different programming languages, but I want to know how that works.

  Read the article

• Severity and relation to occurence - priority?

  - by user970696

  I have been browsing through some webpages related to testing and found one dealing with the metrics of testing. It says: The severity level of a defect indicates the potential business impact for the end user (business impact = effect on the end user x frequency of occurrence). I do not think think this is correct or what am I missing? Usually it is the priority which is the result of such a calculation (severe bug that occurs rarely is still severe but does not have to be fixed immediately). Also from this description, what is the difference between the effect on the end user and business impact?

  Read the article

• Is excessive indirection and/or redundant encapsulation a recognized concept?

  - by Omega

  I'm curious if there's a series of tendencies or anti-patterns when programming whereby a developer will always locally re-wrap external dependencies when consuming them. A slightly less vague example might be say when consuming an implementation of an interface or abstract, and mapping every touch-point locally before interacting with them. Like an overcomplicated take on composition. Given my example, would the interface not be reliable enough and any change to it never be surmountable any any level of indirection? Is this a good or a bad practice? Can it ever go too far? Does it have a proper name?

  Read the article

• Quality Assurance tools discrepancies

  - by Roudak

  It is a bit ironic, yesterday I answered a question related to this topic that was marked to be good and today I'm the one who asks. These are my thoughts and a question: Also let's agree on the terms: QA is a set of activities that defines and implements processes during SW development. The common tool is the process audit. However, my colleague at work agrees with the opinion that reviews and inspections are also quality assurance tools, although most sources classify them as quality control. I would say both sides are partially right: during inspections, we evaluate a physical product (clearly QC) but we see it as a white box so we can check its compliance with set processes (QA). Do you think it is the reason of the dichotomy among the authors? I know it is more like an academic question but it deserves the answer :)

  Read the article

• Isn't class scope purely for organization?

  - by Di-0xide

  Isn't scope just a way to organize classes, preventing outside code from accessing certain things you don't want accessed? More specifically, is there any functional gain to having public, protected, or private-scoped methods? Is there any advantage to classifying method/property scope rather than to, say, just public-ize everything? My presumption says no simply because, in binary code, there is no sense of scope (other than r/w/e, which isn't really scope at all, but rather global permissions for a block of memory). Is this correct? What about in languages like Java and C#[.NET]?

  Read the article

• Visit our Consolidated List of Mandatory Project Costing Code and Data Fixes

  - by SherryG-Oracle

  Projects Support has a published document with a consolidated listing of mandatory code and data fixes for Project Costing.  Generic Data Fix (GDF) patches are created by development to fix data issues caused by bugs/issues in the application code.  The GDF patches are released for download via My Oracle Support which are then referenced in My Oracle Support documents and by support to provide data fixes for known code fix issues.Consolidated root cause code fix and generic data fix patches will be superceded whenever any new version is created.  These patches fix a number of critical code and data issues identified in the Project Costing flow.This document contains a consolidated list of code and data fixes for Project Costing.  The note lists the following details: Note ID Component Type (code or data) Abstract Patch Visit DocID 1538822.1 today!

  Read the article

• Data Structures: What are some common examples of problems where "buffers" come into action?

  - by Dark Templar

  I was just wondering if there were some "standard" examples that everyone uses as a basis for explaining the nature of a problem that requires the use of a buffer. What are some well-known problems in the real world that can see great benefits from using a buffer? Also, a little background or explanation as to why the problem benefits from using a buffer, and how the buffer would be implemented, would be insightful for understanding the concept!

  Read the article

• ISO 12207 - testing being only validation activity? [closed]

  - by user970696

  Possible Duplicate: How come verification does not include actual testing? ISO norm 12207 states that testing is only validation activity, while all static inspections are verification (that requirement, code.. is complete, correct..). I did found some articles saying its not correct but you know, it is not "official". I would like to understand because there are two different concepts (in books & articles): 1) Verification is all testing except for UAT (because only user can really validate the use). E.g. here OR 2) Verification is everything but testing. All testing is validation. E.g. here Definitions are mostly the same, as Sommerville's: The aim of verification is to check that the software meets its stated functional and non-functional requirements. Validation, however, is a more general process. The aim of validation is to ensure that the software meets the customer’s expectations. It goes beyond simply checking conformance with the specification to demonstrating that the software does what the customer expects it to do It is really bugging me because I tend to agree that functional testing done on a product (SIT) is still verification because I just follow the requirements. But ISO does not agree..

  Read the article

• How often do CPUs make calculation errors?

  - by veryfoolish

  In Dijkstra's Notes on Structured Programming he talks a lot about the provability of computer programs as abstract entities. As a corollary, he remarks how testing isn't enough. E.g., he points out the fact that it would be impossible to test a multiplication function f(x,y) = x*y for any large values of x and y across the entire ranges of x and y. My question concerns his misc. remarks on "lousy hardware". I know the essay was written in the 1970s when computer hardware was less reliable, but computers still aren't perfect, so they must make calculation mistakes sometimes. Does anybody know how often this happens or if there are any statistics on this?

  Read the article

• What is the aim of software testing?

  - by user970696

  Having read many books, there is a basic contradiction: Some say, "the goal of testing is to find bugs" while other say "the goal of the testing is to equalize the quality of the product", meaning that bugs are its by-products. I would also agree that if testing would be aimed primarily on a bug hunt, who would do the actual verification and actually provided the information, that the software is ready? Even e.g. Kaner changed his original definiton of testing goal from bug hunting to quality assesement provision but I still cannot see the clear difference. I percieve both as equally important. I can verify software by its specification to make sure it works and in that case, bugs found are just by products. But also I perform tests just to brake things. Also what definition is more accurate?

  Read the article

• Semantic algorithms

  - by Mythago

  I have a more theoretical than practical question. I'll start with an example - when I get an email and open it on my iPad, there is a feature, which recognizes the timestamp from the text and offers me to create an event in the calendar. Simply told, I want to know theoretically how it's done - I believe it's some kind of semantic parsing, and I would like if someone could point me to some resources, where I can read more about this.

  Read the article

• Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do (a problem from Introduction to algorithms) [closed]

  - by Mike

  EDITED (I realized that the question certainly needs a context) The problem 1.1-5 in the book of Thomas Cormen et al Introduction to algorithms is: "Come up with a real-world problem in which only the best solution will do. Then come up with one in which a solution that is “approximately” the best is good enough." I'm interested in its first statement. And (from my understanding) it is asked to name a real-world problem where only the exact solution will work as opposed to a real-world problem where good-enough solution will be ok. So what is the difference between the exact and good enough solution. Consider some physics problem for example the simulation of the fulid flow in the permeable medium. To make this simulation happen some simplyfing assumptions have to be made when deriving a mathematical model. Otherwise the model becomes at least complex and unsolvable. Virtually any particle in the universe has its influence on the fluid flow. But not all particles are equal. Those that form the permeable medium are much more influental than the ones located light years away. Then when the mathematical model needs to be solved an exact solution can rarely be found unless the mathematical model is simple enough (wich probably means the model isn't close to reality). We take an approximate numerical method and after hours of coding and days of verification come up with the program or algorithm which is a solution. And if the model and an algorithm give results close to a real problem by some degree that is good enough soultion. Its worth noting the difference between exact solution algorithm and exact computation result. When considering real-world problems and real-world computation machines I believe all physical problems solutions where any calculations are taken can not be exact because universal physical constants are represented approximately in the computer. Any numbers are represented with the limited precision, at least limited by amount of memory available to computing machine. I can imagine plenty of problems where good-enough, good to some degree solution will work, like train scheduling, automated trading, satellite orbit calculation, health care expert systems. In that cases exact solutions can't be derived due to constraints on computation time, limitations in computer memory or due to the nature of problems. I googled this question and like what this guy suggests: there're kinds of mathematical problems that need exact solutions (little note here: because the question is taken from the book "Introduction to algorithms" the term "solution" means an algorithm or a program, which in this case gives exact answer on each input). But that's probably more of theoretical interest. So I would like to narrow down the question to: What are the real-world practical problems where only the best (exact) solution algorithm or program will do (but not the good-enough solution)? There are problems like breaking of cryptographic ciphers where only exact solution matters in practice and again in practice the process of deciphering without knowing a secret should take reasonable amount of time. Returning to the original question this is the problem where good-enough (fast-enough) solution will do there's no practical need in instant crack though it's desired. So the quality of "best" can be understood in any sense: exact, fastest, requiring least memory, having minimal possible network traffic etc. And still I want this question to be theoretical if possible. In a sense that there may be example of computer X that has limited resource R of amount Y where the best solution to problem P is the one that takes not more than available Y for inputs of size N*Y. But that's the problem of finding solution for P on computer X which is... well, good enough. My final thought that we live in a world where it is required from programming solutions to practical purposes to be good enough. In rare cases really very very good but still not the best ones. Isn't it? :) If it's not can you provide an example? Or can you name any such unsolved problem of practical interest?

  Read the article

• Validation and Verification explanation (Boehm) - I cannot understand its point

  - by user970696

  Hopefully my last thread about V&V as I found the B.Boehm is text which I just do not understand well (likely my technical English is not that good). http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/1979/usccse79-501/usccse79-501.pdf Basically he says that verification is about checking that products derived from requirements baseline must correspond to it and that deviation leads only to changes in these derived products (design, code). But he says it begins with design and ends with acceptance tests (you can check the V model inside). The thing is, I have accepted ISO12207 in terms of all testing is validation, yet it does not make any sense here. In order to be sure the product complies with requirements (acceptance test) I need to test it. Also it says that validation problems means that requirements are bad and needs to be changed - which does not happen with testing that testers do, who just checks correspondence with requirements.

  Read the article

• Quality Assurance=inspections, reviews..?

  - by user970696

  Studying this subject extensively, the most books state the following: Quality Assurance: prevention activity. Act of inspection, reviewing.. Quality Control: testing While there are some exceptions that mention that QA deals with just processes (planning, strategy, standard application etc.) which is IMHO much closer to real QA, yet I cannot find any good reference in Google Books. I believe that inspections, reviews, testing is all quality control as it is about checking products, no matter if it is the final one or work products. The problem is that so many authors do not agree. I would be grateful for detailed explanation, ideally with a reference.

  Read the article

• Is there such a thing these days as programming in the small?

  - by WeNeedAnswers

  With all the programming languages that are out there, what exactly does it mean to program in the small and is it still possible, without the possibility of re-purposing to the large. The original article which mentions in the small was dated to 1975 and referred to scripting languages (as glue languages). Maybe I am missing the point, but any language that you can built components of code out of, I would regard to being able to handle "in the large". Is there a confusion on what Objects are and do they really figure as being mandatory to being able to handle "the large". Many have argued that this is the true meaning of "In the large" and that the concepts of objects are best fit for the job.

  Read the article

• The Data Distribution Service for Real-Time Systems: Part 2

  Structuring and managing your data Data Distribution Service - Business - Data Distribution Service for Real-Time Systems - Databases - Data Warehousing

  Read the article

• Bug severity classification issues

  - by KyleMinn

  In a book I have, there is a following classification of defect: Critical : A defect receives a “critical” severity level if one or more critical system functionalities are impaired by a defect with is impaired and there is no workaround. High: A defect receives a “high” severity level if some fundamental system functionalities are impaired but a workaround exists. Medium: A defect receives a “medium” severity level if no critical functionality is impaired and a workaround exists for the defect. Low: A defect receives a “low” severity level if the problem involves a cosmetic feature of the system. To be honest, I do not get it.. For example point 2. What if fundamental but not critical feature is impaired and there is NOT a workaround. The same for point 3: what if no critical functionality is affected but there is no workaround? E.g. optional field in the registration form does not work. No workaround but barely an issue.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57  | Next Page >