Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?

From: Dan <guntermann_at_verizon.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:20:32 GMT
Message-ID: <4nzrd.10840$xk5.6771_at_trnddc09>

"Alfredo Novoa" <anovoa_at_ncs.es> wrote in message news:g7qsq0ttkanetjaj9sh2oi9bsfblf1lq9f_at_4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:58:02 +0100, "Rene de Visser"
> <Rene_de_Visser_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Databases should have rich, powerful and well designed scalar type
> systems and that's all.
>

Databases or DBMSs, Alfredo? ;-)

>
>
> Regards
>
>

- Dan Received on Thu Dec 02 2004 - 08:20:32 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Vinodh Kumar P: "Number of foreign keys"
Previous message: mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com: "Re: U_SUMMARIZE: how aggregate is calculated?"
Maybe in reply to: Rene de Visser: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
In reply to Alfredo Novoa: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Next in thread: Dan: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"
Reply: Ja Lar: "Re: Logical equivalence of simple and complex types under the relational model?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message