Re: Base Normal Form

From: David Cressey <david.cressey_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 01:13:51 GMT
Message-ID: <jxFze.18311$pa3.15983@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>

"Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message news:pvDze.140586$UG6.7398446_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> David Cressey wrote:
> > "Jan Hidders" <jan.hidders_at_REMOVETHIS.pandora.be> wrote in message
> > news:Lfeze.139531$Jn.7313539_at_phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> >
> >>I think that would be very confusing. First, his table actually has
> >>ordering, functions don't.
> >
> > It's not clear to me that a table has ordering, if I understand you
> > correctly.
>
> Since you did not really define the notion of "table" but distinguished
> it from relation I made a guess that by table you meant something where
> the tuples were ordered as in a list. But since it's your term you get
> to define it, so if you say it is a bag, then it is a bag. Is it?
>
> -- Jan Hidders

Actually, I didn't think there would be any discussion of the word "table".

All I mean by "table" is the same thing that the word means in common SQL parlance. And that's what I expected everyone to understand that I meant. Oh, well.

I'd be very surprised if the cdt glossary has no entry for "table". It seems a curious omission. Received on Fri Jul 08 2005 - 20:13:51 CDT