I swear to god whenever I search for something in the python standard library I have to scroll past a bunch of sites like this before i find the actual docs.
> It is important to understand the interaction between aggregates and SQL's WHERE and HAVING clauses. The fundamental difference between WHERE and HAVING is this: WHERE selects input rows before groups and aggregates are computed (thus, it controls which rows go into the aggregate computation), whereas HAVING selects group rows after groups and aggregates are computed. Thus, the WHERE clause must not contain aggregate functions; it makes no sense to try to use an aggregate to determine which rows will be inputs to the aggregates. On the other hand, the HAVING clause always contains aggregate functions. (Strictly speaking, you are allowed to write a HAVING clause that doesn't use aggregates, but it's seldom useful. The same condition could be used more efficiently at the WHERE stage.)
Thank you for linking this, it's very concise and actually helpful.
https://wikidiff.com/spam/spam
https://www.codegrepper.com/code-examples/python/frameworks/...
EDIT2: replaced statement of fact about WHERE/HAVING with this message.
It may be time to admit that general purpose search engines are fundamentally broken and that the only useful way forward is subject-specific search that allows users to be in control of their results.
The bloggers themselves initiate the issue, and I don't see how subject-specific engines could completely solve that. Why would they be able to distinguish this article from a well written entry on a SQL topic that is not just a restatement of fairly basic knowledge? Docs don't cover everything, there's space for articles like this that follow the same basic structure but with more useful information, a and once people can infer a little bit about the search engine's algorithm from how it shows results then we're back to the SEO arms race.
But I wouldn't go as far as to say that the person who writes the website is not the problem. The content in these sites is usually borderline spam.
I've been saying that since I first heard someone pitching SEO while eating lunch. Once you start gaming an index for visibility, Tragedy of the Commons goes into full swing, and the Yellow Pages ironically become a truer representation of actual local state. To this day, the memory of that...individual just going on and on casually talking pitching about what is no less than intentional pollution of the search structure of the collective knowledge of human still causes a hot nugget of incandescent rage and disgust deep within my soul. Before now, the thought of forgiving them has never entered my mind before now, and in this minute is quickly dismissed. I didn't know the person, they were themselves probably just trying to get by best they knew how. But I just can't seem to let it go. Poisoning the well like that... It either requires the most appalling sense of shallow callousness, profound ignorance, or a complete disregard for the integrity of our species' collective informational output. It's the burning of the Library of Alexandria by way of Salesman vying for attention. As time goes on the disgust only becomes becomes more pointed as the practice is normalized and refined to the point the way information is organized and made accessible on the Internet makes a bigger statement on what society really values than the indexed content itself does.
I'd normally say live and let live, but I'm getting increasingly bothered by the suffering and extra cognitive load foisted on the world by ads, marketing, etc..., and the lack of societal wherewithal to push back and say enough is enough.
Anyway, this rant brought to you by Libraries! Support your local branch today! Strike a blow for open access!
The thing is, documentation is (usually) written very dense, with a lot of assumptions about knowledge. The PostgreSQL documentation on WHERE vs HAVING is decent (https://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/tutorial-agg.html), but the MySQL documentation (https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/select.html) is ... a lot to read and not very explanatory for someone who only rarely deals in SQL.
Documentation writing is an art and most projects don't have the resources to have actually working documentation, much less understandable documentation - which is part of the reason why w3schools, stackoverflow, quora and random SEO "blogs" get so much traffic.
I think your problem is with search engines and not the writers of these articles, who probably don't consider you to be the target audience.
(This is not a comparison between the languages, just an oddity about the docs)
I created special "search engines" on my browser, so I start typing ":p" and whatever I write next it automatically searches using the site:python.org filter.
The standard library docs have their own search. Plus there is always help()