Re: Are there terms for these?
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:16:30 GMT
Message-ID: <2YuPe.306942$5V4.77459_at_pd7tw3no>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_thread/thread/7a855309c23c73eb/1aad918848dd35fd
>
> This is very sad. I found the topic incomprehensible and was not following
> closely. Now I'll have to go back.
> ...
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 02:16:30 GMT
Message-ID: <2YuPe.306942$5V4.77459_at_pd7tw3no>
Kenneth Downs wrote:
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
>
>>Kenneth Downs wrote: >> >>>Marshall Spight wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Kenneth Downs wrote: >>>> >>>>>Given two tables that are not UNION compatible, it seems there are >>>>>ways to UNION them anyway. >>>>> >>>>>Method 1, Intersect their headers. The resulting header is used to >>>>>project >>>>>both tables and now those projections are union compatible. What >>>>>would this be called? >>>> >>>>We've been discussing this a lot. There was even a thead I started >>>>about >>>>a month ago called (IIRC) What would this operator be called? >>> >>>This is scary, how did I miss it? >> >>Here it is: >> >>"What to call this operator?" >>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.databases.theory/browse_thread/thread/7a855309c23c73eb/1aad918848dd35fd
>
> This is very sad. I found the topic incomprehensible and was not following
> closely. Now I'll have to go back.
> ...
Hey, Marshall. Sorry, I didn't catch the question the first time. 'Meet' looks like an attractive word to me, both 'meet and proper' and reminds me of a Beatles lyric, 'come together, right now' which seems rather precise as far as computers are concerned.
pc Received on Fri Aug 26 2005 - 04:16:30 CEST