On 8 Jun 2006 05:21:07 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book Practical
Issues in Database Management.
Some questions:
1) Is PostgreSQL more faithful to relational theory? If so, do you find
yourself using the additional
Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them, or
so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the absence of
data- so why put non-data in a _data_base.
If you are asking yourself the question how you can have support
multiple meanings in a column, normalize.
On Jun 8, 2006, at 9:32 PM, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:09:21PM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:09:12AM -0400, Agent M wrote:
Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them, or
so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the absence of
data- so why put non-data in a _data_base.
At this point you could start a whole philosophical
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 05:20:46PM +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 07:09:12AM -0400, Agent M wrote:
Well, the Date argument against NULLs (and he never endorsed them,
or so he claims) is that they are not data- they represent the
absence of data- so why put
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book Practical
Issues in Database Management.
Though I've just gotten started with the book, he seems to be saying
that modern RDBMSs aren't as faithful to relational theory as they
ought to be, and that this has many *practical* consequences,
In the last exciting episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book Practical
Issues in Database Management.
Though I've just gotten started with the book, he seems to be saying
that modern RDBMSs aren't as faithful to relational theory as they
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm reading, and enjoying immensely, Fabial Pascal's book Practical
Issues in Database Management.
Be aware that Pascal, along with Date and Darwen, are...how do I put
this gently...cranks. They've been getting more strident
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:22:46PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 17:14, David Fetter wrote:
Pascal, Date, and Darwen have been alleging for years, with
increasing shrillness, that DBMSs should be based on set theory
and 2-value logic. I say alleging because they have
To balance the discussion, I would like to say that I thoroughly
enjoyed Date's latest Database In Depth. It gave me a strong
foundation in relational theory and I can say that I think more about
my schema designs thanks to the advice in the text. Just because SQL
may allow something, doesn't
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
testable system, or Hell freezes over, whichever comes first, Pascal's
book will make a good companion on your
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 06:09:21PM -0700, Trent Shipley wrote:
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
testable system, or Hell freezes over,
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trent Shipley)
wrote:
On Thursday 2006-06-08 15:14, David Fetter wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 05:21:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on bag theory[1] and 3-value logic[2]. Until they come up with a
testable system, or Hell
13 matches
Mail list logo
