Re: 3vl 2vl and NULL
From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:04:22 GMT
Message-ID: <awSkf.175$FP6.49_at_newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
> Here's the thing: If you have a table with an unlimited number of rows
> and a limited number of columns then it is understood that the number
> of tuples in the table is rows*columns. True?
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:04:22 GMT
Message-ID: <awSkf.175$FP6.49_at_newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
michael_at_preece.net wrote:
> David Cressey wrote:
>> [...]
> Here's the thing: If you have a table with an unlimited number of rows
> and a limited number of columns then it is understood that the number
> of tuples in the table is rows*columns. True?
Not for any definition I've heard of... Did you mean 'values' instead of 'tuples'? "The number of values in the table is rows * columns".
> And every tuple must have a value.
Yes - for tuples as tuples, or tuples misreferenced when values was
intended. Further, the component values in each tuple must have a value.
> And if we don't have a actual value for one or more tuples we
IMO, this is so confused between tuples and values that there is no
> have to use NULL to represent the fact that there is no value.
Would you be willing to try again?
-- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2005.02 -- http://dbi.perl.org/Received on Mon Dec 05 2005 - 09:04:22 CET