Chevron Left
返回到 SQL for Data Science

学生对 加州大学戴维斯分校 提供的 SQL for Data Science 的评价和反馈

13,091 个评分


As data collection has increased exponentially, so has the need for people skilled at using and interacting with data; to be able to think critically, and provide insights to make better decisions and optimize their businesses. This is a data scientist, “part mathematician, part computer scientist, and part trend spotter” (SAS Institute, Inc.). According to Glassdoor, being a data scientist is the best job in America; with a median base salary of $110,000 and thousands of job openings at a time. The skills necessary to be a good data scientist include being able to retrieve and work with data, and to do that you need to be well versed in SQL, the standard language for communicating with database systems. This course is designed to give you a primer in the fundamentals of SQL and working with data so that you can begin analyzing it for data science purposes. You will begin to ask the right questions and come up with good answers to deliver valuable insights for your organization. This course starts with the basics and assumes you do not have any knowledge or skills in SQL. It will build on that foundation and gradually have you write both simple and complex queries to help you select data from tables. You'll start to work with different types of data like strings and numbers and discuss methods to filter and pare down your results. You will create new tables and be able to move data into them. You will learn common operators and how to combine the data. You will use case statements and concepts like data governance and profiling. You will discuss topics on data, and practice using real-world programming assignments. You will interpret the structure, meaning, and relationships in source data and use SQL as a professional to shape your data for targeted analysis purposes. Although we do not have any specific prerequisites or software requirements to take this course, a simple text editor is recommended for the final project. So what are you waiting for? This is your first step in landing a job in the best occupation in the US and soon the world!...



Aug 22, 2021

I thought this course was great! Great introduction to Relational Databases and SQLite. Highly reccomend for anyone new to SQL, Databases, or someone looking to get started with a data science career.


Apr 5, 2020

This course has really helped with optimizing queries that I work with everyday, enhancing my understanding of RDBMS, joins, analyzing and structuring exactly what you need and yielding those results.


3126 - SQL for Data Science 的 3150 个评论(共 3,471 个)


Aug 14, 2022


创建者 alom j

Oct 27, 2020


创建者 shashank c

Jul 17, 2022



Apr 19, 2022



Nov 18, 2021


创建者 Shiny J

Jul 31, 2021


创建者 Juan J U R

Jul 12, 2021


创建者 ARYAN A S 2

Jun 18, 2021


创建者 Kedar J

Apr 15, 2021


创建者 Prayag p w

Mar 1, 2021


创建者 Bat-Enkh O

Oct 15, 2020



Sep 13, 2020


创建者 Shivani P U

Aug 20, 2020


创建者 Tenzing S

Aug 2, 2020



Jun 24, 2020


创建者 NAGA P Y

May 25, 2020


创建者 Emmanuel H

May 5, 2020



Dec 13, 2019


创建者 王楚豪

Dec 25, 2020


创建者 abhishek a

Jun 25, 2020


创建者 Mina T

Sep 9, 2021


创建者 Nicolas A P

Jun 6, 2020


创建者 Cian O M

Mar 1, 2018


创建者 Greg S

Dec 16, 2020

The lectures and weekly coursework were fine -- although a bit too easy. The emphasis on certain aspects, such as formatting/commenting, and some comments on joins were on point. Sadie has a soothing voice and good pace, although the content somewhat drags at places. Not her fault as a presenter, the videos were just going too slow imo. There were a few typos in the lecture slides, one of which was quite confusing (I have reported them separately).

Unfortunately what really stood out in a negative way was the peer-graded assignment. This *really* needs to be rewritten. Specific problems:



Questions 5 to 7 could be answered in two different ways: one, which is the "easier" one and the one that the marking guide forced us to accept, is to read off review_count from the Business table (and descend-order it). The first few results this way are


| city | reviews |


| Las Vegas | 82854 |

| Phoenix | 34503 |

| Toronto | 24113 |

| Scottsdale | 20614 |

| Charlotte | 12523 |

| Henderson | 10871 |


The problem with this is that the data set we're working on is a SUBSET of the full Yelp set. This means that the Business.review_count column (which was presumably added there in a redundant, denormalized way, in order to speed up queries) contains much higher counts than the ones that would be obtained by actually joining the Business and Review tables (on business id) and grouping by city. Here are the first few results of this approach, which imo is the correct one:


| city | reviews |


| Las Vegas | 193 |

| Phoenix | 65 |

| Toronto | 51 |

| Scottsdale | 37 |

| Henderson | 30 |

| Tempe | 28 |


I would be totally ok if the marking guide gave us the choice to accept both methods, but that wasn't the case.

Part 2


Q1 of Part2 was badly worded and unclear. It asks us to "pick a city AND a category" but then to group the businesses (by star rating) "in that city OR category". What exactly does that mean? Lump together all businesses from eg Phoenix (regardless of category) with the eg Restaurants businesses (regardless of city)? What's the rationale behind this? Or was it meant to read "in that city AND category" (meaning that we would only consider restaurants from Phoenix)?

Also, Q1.iii is both random and vague: why location? What do you mean by location (zip code? longitude/latitude?). This ties to the above ambiguity (X=AND vs X=OR in "in that city X category").

创建者 Alexander B

Mar 2, 2020

Overall rating: The course itself was really good for beginners. I really like SQL


You get a lot of information and it has a clear structure.

There are nice examples and you can train enough.

The rate of speaking of the teacher was perfect for me.

A very good thing was that the questions of the exam fit perfectly well to the information we were taught in the classes.


What i did not like is, that even though you get clear instructions how to write and structure your code, the teacher did not stick to the rules all the time or structured the code in a way, which was not mentioned before.

The reason why i only give 3 stars to this course is that the final assignment was the worst thing i ever experienced in a course. The instructions very totally unclear a lot of times and I had to search the discussion forum to find out what the questions are about. They could be interpreted in many different ways. Additionally, sometimes specific things were asked for like correlation, which is simply not possible if you take the question seriously. This would be a complicated formula, but the real intention of the question was to check it roughly by eye. But you can not tell what the intention is before you know the result and so it took me a lot of time to find out what the intention of several questions was. According to the discussion forum this problem is know for several years now. So enough time to fix it. Therefore i took two stars from the course.