Oracle FAQ
Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME
|
ASK QUESTION
|
ADD INFO
|
SEARCH
|
E-MAIL US
<SCRIPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" SRC="http://www.orafaq.com/cgi-bin/ads/ads.pl?jscript"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://www.orafaq.com/cgi-bin/ads/ads.pl?banner=NonSSI;page=01" TARGET="_blank" onMouseOver="window.status='Click here! Support the Oracle FAQ by supporting our sponsors.';return true" onMouseOut="window.status='';return true"> <IMG SRC="http://www.orafaq.com/cgi-bin/ads/ads.pl?page=01" HEIGHT=60 WIDTH=468 ALT="Support the Oracle FAQ by supporting our sponsors. Click here!" BORDER=0> </A> </NOSCRIPT>
Home
->
Community
->
Usenet
->
comp.databases.theory
-> by date
comp.databases.theory: by date
567 messages
:
Starting
Tue May 01 2007 - 00:23:17 CDT,
Ending
Thu May 31 2007 - 22:48:52 CDT
This period
:
Most recent messages
sort by
: [
thread
] [
author
] [ date ] [
subject
]
Nearby
: [
About this archive
] [
Other mail archives
]
Tuesday, 1 May
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Marshall
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Newbie question about design
idaku2_at_gmail.com
Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question about design
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Vadim Tropashko
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
DBMS_Plumber
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Ed Prochak
Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?
Ed Prochak
Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?
Bob Badour
Wednesday, 2 May
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?
Gene Wirchenko
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Gene Wirchenko
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
Volker Hetzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: Newbie question on table design.
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
Marshall
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
Marshall
Thursday, 3 May
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Kevin Kirkpatrick
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Frank Hamersley
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
Frank Hamersley
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Kevin Kirkpatrick
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
paul c
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
-CELKO-
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
Frank Hamersley
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Frank Hamersley
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Frank Hamersley
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
-CELKO-
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Gene Wirchenko
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Gene Wirchenko
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
TroyK
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Alvin Ryder
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Alvin Ryder
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Gene Wirchenko
Friday, 4 May
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Bob Badour
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Saturday, 5 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Bob Badour
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
David BL
Re: Newbie question on table design.
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Cimode
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Newbie question on table design.
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Kevin Kirkpatrick
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
David Cressey
Sunday, 6 May
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Gene Wirchenko
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
David BL
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Re: more closed-world chatter
David BL
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Gene Wirchenko
Monday, 7 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
David BL
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Christopher Browne
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Christopher Browne
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Generating binary and ternary trees in teh neste4d sets model
-CELKO-
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Alvin Ryder
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
paul c
Tuesday, 8 May
Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Re: Newbie question on table design.
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
David BL
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Wednesday, 9 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
ErkanY
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
Cimode
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
ErkanY
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Thursday, 10 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
Cimode
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
-CELKO-
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?
kerad
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Bob Badour
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Brian Selzer
Friday, 11 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Saturday, 12 May
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: more closed-world chatter
Jon Heggland
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Bob Badour
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: more closed-world chatter
Marshall
Re: more closed-world chatter
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Sunday, 13 May
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
set builder notation for relational division
Marshall
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Gene Wirchenko
Monday, 14 May
Re: set builder notation for relational division
Vadim Tropashko
Re: set builder notation for relational division
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Tuesday, 15 May
Isolation levels
Razvan Socol
CFP: WWW/Internet 2007 - Portugal
natty2006_at_gmail.com
Re: Isolation levels
Bob Badour
bags vs. sets
Marshall
Re: bags vs. sets
Bob Badour
Re: bags vs. sets
Vadim Tropashko
Re: bags vs. sets
Gene Wirchenko
Re: bags vs. sets
David Cressey
Re: bags vs. sets
Bob Badour
Re: bags vs. sets
Vadim Tropashko
Comparing two Oracle Databases
kalai
Wednesday, 16 May
Re: bags vs. sets
Brian Selzer
Re: Comparing two Oracle Databases
Harm Olthof
Re: bags vs. sets
David Cressey
Re: bags vs. sets
Bob Badour
Re: Isolation levels
V.J. Kumar
Re: Isolation levels
Brian Selzer
Thursday, 17 May
Re: Self Joins and optimization
David Cressey
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
Bob Hairgrove
Re: Isolation levels
Lee Fesperman
two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
artev
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
Lennart
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
Ed Prochak
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio
Frank Hamersley
Re: Self Joins and optimization
Brian Selzer
Friday, 18 May
naive questions about nested intervals with Farey fractions
blacksqr
Databasescheme with UML
Christian Bruckhoff
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
artev
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Bob Badour
Re: naive questions about nested intervals with Farey fractions
Vadim Tropashko
GROUP BY
Marshall
Re: GROUP BY
Bob Badour
Re: GROUP BY
David Cressey
Re: GROUP BY
Gene Wirchenko
Re: GROUP BY
paul c
Re: GROUP BY
Marshall
Re: GROUP BY
Marshall
Saturday, 19 May
Question about "linking tables"
Kevin Porter
Re: Question about "linking tables"
Bob Stearns
Re: Question about "linking tables"
Kevin Porter
Re: GROUP BY
David Portas
Re: Question about "linking tables"
David Cressey
Re: GROUP BY
David Cressey
Re: GROUP BY
David Cressey
Re: GROUP BY
V.J. Kumar
Re: GROUP BY
Lennart
Re: GROUP BY
Brian Selzer
Re: GROUP BY
V.J. Kumar
Re: Question about "linking tables"
Bob Badour
Re: Isolation levels
Razvan Socol
Re: GROUP BY
Vadim Tropashko
Re: GROUP BY
Marshall
Re: GROUP BY
Bob Badour
Re: GROUP BY
Bob Badour
Re: GROUP BY
Vadim Tropashko
Re: GROUP BY
Vadim Tropashko
Re: GROUP BY
David Portas
Re: GROUP BY
Brian Selzer
Re: GROUP BY
Bob Badour
Re: GROUP BY
Brian Selzer
Re: GROUP BY
Brian Selzer
Re: GROUP BY
Gene Wirchenko
Sunday, 20 May
constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Marshall
Re: GROUP BY
Lennart
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Re: GROUP BY
V.J. Kumar
Re: GROUP BY
Lennart
Re: GROUP BY
V.J. Kumar
Re: GROUP BY
V.J. Kumar
JOB POSTING: Looking for a senior database manager /department head/ architecture
ezduffy_at_gmail.com
Re: JOB POSTING: Looking for a senior database manager /department head/ architecture
Jan M. Nelken
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Monday, 21 May
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
David Portas
Re: GROUP BY
Lennart
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Vadim Tropashko
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Tuesday, 22 May
Little design mistakes that can easily be avoided (1): Concatenated keys and addition of columns
Cimode
Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes)
David Cressey
Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (1): Concatenated Keys and Addition of Attributes
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes)
Cimode
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
Ed Prochak
Re: Little design mistakes that can easily be avoided (1): Concatenated keys and addition of columns
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes)
Gene Wirchenko
Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?
Bob Badour
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Bob Badour
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Marshall
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Gene Wirchenko
Wednesday, 23 May
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Goran Mandinic
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Roy Hann
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Jon Heggland
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
David Cressey
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Roy Hann
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Brian Selzer
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Roy Hann
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Brian Selzer
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Bob Badour
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
David Cressey
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Roy Hann
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
paul c
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Bob Badour
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Bob Badour
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Cimode
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
daveb
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
DBMS_Plumber
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
DBMS_Plumber
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Eric
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Bob Badour
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Thursday, 24 May
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
Brian Selzer
Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Cimode
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
David Cressey
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Cimode
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
David Cressey
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Cimode
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Brian Selzer
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
DBMS_Plumber
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Cimode
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
David Cressey
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
paul c
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
paul c
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
-CELKO-
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Brian Selzer
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
David Cressey
Friday, 25 May
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Roy Hann
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
David Cressey
Re: Databasescheme with UML
dawn
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
-CELKO-
Re: Question about "linking tables"
Neo
Looking for Employee data model
Shayne
Re: Stupid Database Tricks
Gene Wirchenko
Saturday, 26 May
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Brian Selzer
Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation
Brian Selzer
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bruce C. Baker
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bruce C. Baker
Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus
paul c
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
paul c
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
paul c
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bruce C. Baker
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
paul c
Sunday, 27 May
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bruce C. Baker
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
David Cressey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Roy Hann
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Marshall
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
paul c
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Eric
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Looking for Employee data model
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Alfredo Novoa
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
-CELKO-
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
paul c
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Gene Wirchenko
Monday, 28 May
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Alfredo Novoa
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Eric
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Eric
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Jon Heggland
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listening to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bert Blink
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
David Cressey
Quod est veritas
David Cressey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
David Cressey
Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Looking for Employee data model
David Cressey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
David Cressey
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Gene Wirchenko
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Keith H Duggar
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Eric
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Eric
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listening to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Tuesday, 29 May
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate
DM Unseen
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Cimode
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Goran Mandinic
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Alfredo Novoa
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Re: Databasescheme with UML
Jon Heggland
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Matthias Klaey
From class diagram to physical data model : conceptual data model or not ?
zejeanmi_at_gmail.com
Book recall
-CELKO-
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Marshall
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
daveb
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Bob Badour
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
daveb
Re: Book recall
daveb
Re: Book recall
Bob Badour
Wednesday, 30 May
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Jon Heggland
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Brian Selzer
Re: Book recall
-CELKO-
Re: Book recall
David Cressey
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
DBMS_Plumber
Re: Book recall
-CELKO-
Re: Book recall
Bob Badour
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Marshall
Thursday, 31 May
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: From class diagram to physical data model : conceptual data model or not ?
Cimode
Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)
Larry Coon
Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Marshall
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
V.J. Kumar
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Marshall
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
paul c
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined
Vadim Tropashko
Re: Complement in Relational Lattice
Marshall
Last message date
:
Thu May 31 2007 - 22:48:52 CDT
Archived on
: Fri Jun 29 2007 - 16:56:43 CDT
567 messages
sort by
: [
thread
] [
author
] [ date ] [
subject
]
Nearby
: [
About this archive
] [
Other mail archives
]
HOME
|
ASK QUESTION
|
ADD INFO
|
SEARCH
|
E-MAIL US
