Re: Plural or singular table names

From: Paul Vernon <paul.vernon_at_ukk.ibmm.comm>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 19:08:53 +0100
Message-ID: <bj2mh2$fri$1_at_gazette.almaden.ibm.com>

Summarising..

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:RN35b.377$hL1.39717997_at_mantis.golden.net...

> > Therefore I say the that the tuple type itself should be (a reasonable
> > approximation) for the predicate.
>
> I agree.

Good.

Further, if it is a good enough approximation, then we don't need to be overly concerned with the external predicate.

BTW Could you show me how a constraint alters the meaning of a set of tuples? For me, a constraint alters the allowable set of meanings, it does not alter the meaning of a particular set of tuples. Only if you include your (catalog) constraint tuples in the set does the meaning change.

Regards
Paul Vernon
Business Intelligence, IBM Global Services Received on Tue Sep 02 2003 - 20:08:53 CEST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Bob Badour: "Re: Plural or singular table names"
Previous message: Marshall Spight: "Re: does a table always need a PK?"
Maybe in reply to: Tony Douglas: "Re: Plural or singular table names"
In reply to Paul Vernon: "Re: Plural or singular table names"
Next in thread: Bob Badour: "Re: Plural or singular table names"
Reply: Bob Badour: "Re: Plural or singular table names"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message