- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer salmobytes (Thu Jan 01 2009 - 01:47:51 CET)
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, part 4 Bob Badour (Thu Jan 01 2009 - 02:46:05 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Brian Selzer (Thu Jan 01 2009 - 08:05:43 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Gene Wirchenko (Thu Jan 01 2009 - 08:33:00 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer Keith H Duggar (Sun Jan 04 2009 - 00:02:07 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer JOG (Sun Jan 04 2009 - 04:27:20 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer Gene Wirchenko (Sun Jan 04 2009 - 07:49:07 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Brian Selzer (Mon Jan 05 2009 - 16:19:35 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints paul c (Mon Jan 05 2009 - 17:12:03 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer Keith H Duggar (Tue Jan 06 2009 - 04:54:30 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Brian Selzer (Tue Jan 06 2009 - 05:43:19 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! Brian Selzer (Tue Jan 06 2009 - 06:14:17 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Brian Selzer (Tue Jan 06 2009 - 13:31:14 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer rpost (Wed Jan 07 2009 - 18:03:22 CET)
- Re: native xml processing vs what Postgres and Oracle offer rpost (Wed Jan 07 2009 - 19:40:41 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! rpost (Wed Jan 07 2009 - 20:40:33 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! Brian Selzer (Thu Jan 08 2009 - 04:35:12 CET)
- Re: algebra equations for Reference and FD constraints Walter Mitty (Thu Jan 08 2009 - 14:14:46 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! rpost (Thu Jan 08 2009 - 20:21:59 CET)
- Re: A different definition of MINUS, part 4 paul c (Fri Jan 09 2009 - 01:14:00 CET)
- Re: Search efficiency - RDMS search versus free text search Taras_96 (Wed Jan 14 2009 - 12:46:08 CET)
- Re: Search efficiency - RDMS search versus free text search paul c (Wed Jan 14 2009 - 15:56:26 CET)
- Re: Search efficiency - RDMS search versus free text search Walter Mitty (Wed Jan 14 2009 - 16:34:33 CET)
- CFP: The 2009 International Conference on Software Engineering Research and Practice (SERP'09), USA, July 13-16, 2009 A. M. G. Solo (Thu Jan 15 2009 - 11:41:21 CET)
- Re: how to design database for binary tree -CELKO- (Wed Jan 21 2009 - 15:05:57 CET)
- Call for Papers: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Applied Computing Conferences, July 13-16, 2009, USA, WORLDCOMP'09 A. M. G. Solo (Thu Jan 22 2009 - 15:18:03 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? carl.henthorn_at_gmail.com (Fri Jan 23 2009 - 01:18:13 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? Brian Selzer (Fri Jan 23 2009 - 01:58:26 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? patrick61z_at_yahoo.com (Fri Jan 23 2009 - 21:27:59 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? patrick61z_at_yahoo.com (Fri Jan 23 2009 - 21:39:41 CET)
- Re: Search efficiency - RDMS search versus free text search patrick61z_at_yahoo.com (Fri Jan 23 2009 - 22:06:15 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? -CELKO- (Sat Jan 24 2009 - 17:26:56 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? patrick61z_at_yahoo.com (Sat Jan 24 2009 - 22:44:16 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? David BL (Mon Jan 26 2009 - 02:22:34 CET)
- Re: how to design database for binary tree kashi (Tue Jan 27 2009 - 12:17:23 CET)
- Re: Best way to design table to store attributes? DBMS_Plumber (Wed Jan 28 2009 - 05:48:28 CET)
- Re: how to design database for binary tree DBMS_Plumber (Wed Jan 28 2009 - 05:50:22 CET)
- Re: How can a group by clause be modified so the end weeks of the year won't be split? Philipp Post (Thu Jan 29 2009 - 12:10:21 CET)
- Re: How can a group by clause be modified so the end weeks of the year won't be split? Walter Mitty (Thu Jan 29 2009 - 14:39:15 CET)
- Re: How can a group by clause be modified so the end weeks of the year won't be split? -CELKO- (Thu Jan 29 2009 - 16:21:22 CET)
- Re: How can a group by clause be modified so the end weeks of the year won't be split? Ted Byers (Thu Jan 29 2009 - 18:00:42 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! compdb_at_hotmail.com (Thu Jan 29 2009 - 23:05:55 CET)
- Re: a union is always a join! compdb_at_hotmail.com (Fri Jan 30 2009 - 06:05:18 CET)
- Last message date: Thu Jan 01 2009 - 03:25:26 CET
- Archived on: Sun Jun 26 2016 - 23:55:17 CEST
|