comp.databases.theory: by thread

Re: Two relations with the same attributes mAsterdam (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 00:43:06 CEST)
Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 00:15:30 CEST)
Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 01:54:32 CEST)
- Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 02:38:45 CEST)
Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval Bob Badour (Mon Sep 18 2006 - 01:36:38 CEST)
Re: Multiple keys and transition constraints JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 00:02:12 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Frank Hamersley (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 02:47:29 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:23:49 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:41:07 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:56:22 CEST)
    - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:06:09 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:05:51 CEST)
    - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:16:56 CEST)
      - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 04:59:11 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 05:23:50 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 20:45:43 CEST)
    - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:52:15 CEST)
      - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 05:00:55 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 05:25:32 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 20:46:05 CEST)
    - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? peter koch (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 12:12:27 CEST)
      - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 14:21:57 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:55:43 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:04:15 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? peter koch (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 13:19:12 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 14:16:14 CEST)
    - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? peter koch (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 15:28:54 CEST)
      - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 16:01:10 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:11:47 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 23:17:32 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? peter koch (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 11:57:29 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 20:35:50 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Marshall (Thu Sep 21 2006 - 01:27:42 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Jan Hidders (Thu Sep 21 2006 - 11:14:12 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Volker Hetzer (Thu Sep 21 2006 - 23:26:18 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? peter koch (Fri Sep 22 2006 - 10:19:09 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? paul c (Fri Sep 22 2006 - 15:19:43 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? JOG (Fri Sep 22 2006 - 15:34:18 CEST)
        
        Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Marshall (Fri Sep 22 2006 - 18:40:58 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? J M Davitt (Thu Sep 21 2006 - 02:49:58 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:16:46 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:22:45 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:58:17 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? David Cressey (Mon Sep 18 2006 - 22:22:55 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? -CELKO- (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 04:14:59 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Jonathan Leffler (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 09:03:07 CEST)
Re: Columns without names JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 01:57:11 CEST)
- Re: Columns without names Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:30:38 CEST)
  - Re: Columns without names vc (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 19:47:56 CEST)
- Re: Columns without names vc (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 19:43:48 CEST)
Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality J M Davitt (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 02:00:30 CEST)
- Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality miklesw_at_gmail.com (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 08:57:19 CEST)
Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 03:21:32 CEST)
- Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:39:34 CEST)
  - Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 09:17:16 CEST)
    - Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:04:08 CEST)
      - Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:37:43 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Johnny (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 05:00:04 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:46:48 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Roy Hann (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 08:59:37 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 09:38:02 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 16:47:05 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? J M Davitt (Thu Sep 21 2006 - 02:53:46 CEST)
Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality Jonathan Leffler (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 09:10:11 CEST)
- Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality miklesw_at_gmail.com (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:03:22 CEST)
  - Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:41:29 CEST)
    - Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality miklesw_at_gmail.com (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:42:24 CEST)
      - Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:54:59 CEST)
        
        Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality miklesw_at_gmail.com (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 12:22:04 CEST)
        
        Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 13:47:15 CEST)
        
        Re: Ternary Relationship cardinality miklesw_at_gmail.com (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 14:00:00 CEST)
Re: Multiple keys and transition constraints Brian Selzer (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 09:51:32 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Roy Hann (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:32:56 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:00:58 CEST)
  - Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Chris Lim (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:28:41 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:51:38 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Sampo Syreeni (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:53:51 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 10:56:03 CEST)
- Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? -CELKO- (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 16:31:17 CEST)
  - Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 17:39:57 CEST)
Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Roy Hann (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 12:05:08 CEST)
- Re: 3 value logic. Why is SQL so special? Bob Badour (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 16:39:17 CEST)
Re: Who first (publicly) asserted 3NF is "good enough"? David Cressey (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 14:18:23 CEST)
Re: Columns without names JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:37:18 CEST)
- Re: Columns without names vc (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:37:53 CEST)
  - Re: Columns without names JOG (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 01:06:32 CEST)
    - Re: Columns without names vc (Wed Sep 20 2006 - 02:41:56 CEST)
Re: Columns without names JOG (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:50:22 CEST)
Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 04:55:15 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? William Hughes (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 05:43:31 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 05:25:01 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:15:34 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? William Hughes (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 06:21:43 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 07:43:47 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 08:56:24 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Jan Hidders (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:15:15 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:21:07 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 16:47:14 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 17:12:41 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 17:14:31 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 17:43:10 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 18:27:31 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 19:48:53 CEST)
    - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 20:37:36 CEST)
      - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:09:04 CEST)
        
        Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:08:09 CEST)
        
        Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:32:32 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 20:08:16 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? vc (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 20:34:31 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 20:40:40 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:18:27 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? William Hughes (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:40:13 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 21:44:06 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Marshall (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:20:44 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:25:07 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:39:08 CEST)
- Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? Chris Smith (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 22:42:39 CEST)
  - Re: Idempotence and "Replication Insensitivity" are equivalent ? pamelafluente_at_libero.it (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 23:23:10 CEST)
Idempotence and Projection David Cressey (Tue Sep 19 2006 - 11:04:36 CEST)

Last message date: Tue Sep 19 2006 - 23:23:10 CEST
Archived on: Sun Jun 26 2016 - 20:37:40 CEST

96 messages sort by: [ thread ] [ author ] [ date ] [ subject ]
Other periods:[ Previous, Thread view ] [ Next, Thread view ] [ List of Folders ]
Nearby: [ About this archive ] [ Other mail archives ]