Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

Re: Nearest Common Ancestor Report (XDb1's $1000 Challenge)

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 08:21:14 -0400
Message-ID: <pMqdnWd5NLd0WCDdRVn-jg@comcast.com>

"Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra" <leandro_at_dutra.fastmail.fm> wrote in message news:pan.2004.06.01.20.20.53.966095_at_dutra.fastmail.fm...
> Actually a table is not a relation, for it contains
> duplicates, while a relation is a set, therefore excluding duplicates.

I think that what you meant to say is "for it might contain duplicates". I apologize for being so picky about tenses here, but it affects the meaning.

A table can represent a relation provided that duplicates and NULLs are appropriately contolled. Received on Wed Jun 02 2004 - 07:21:14 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US