|
Home ->
Community ->
Usenet ->
comp.databases.theory ->
by date
comp.databases.theory: by date
- Wednesday, 25 July
- Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object. JOG
- Re: I think my book may be wrong about cardinality, but I'm not sure JOG
- Re: Object-oriented SQL statements JOG
- Re: I think my book may be wrong about cardinality, but I'm not sure David Cressey
- Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object. David Cressey
- Re: I think my book may be wrong about cardinality, but I'm not sure JOG
- Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object. JOG
- Help with Design and Obtaining of Data paulwragg2323_at_hotmail.com
- Re: What is that "more" that makes E-R model truly independent ? paul c
- Re: Help with Design and Obtaining of Data Neo
- Re: What is that "more" that makes E-R model truly independent ? David Cressey
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Paul Mansour
- Re: What is that "more" that makes E-R model truly independent ? paul c
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bob Badour
- Re: I think my book may be wrong about cardinality, but I'm not sure beginner16
- Re: Help with Design and Obtaining of Data Evan Keel
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bob Badour
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? paul c
- Subtyping as an alternative to references Cimode
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bob Badour
- Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object. Brian Selzer
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bob Badour
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? paul c
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: Fabian Pascal, completely different? Bruce C. Baker
- Re: I think my book may be wrong about cardinality, but I'm not sure Bruce C. Baker
- Last message date: Wed Jul 25 2007 - 20:13:34 CDT
- Archived on: Sat Aug 25 2007 - 16:26:45 CDT
|
