On febr. 2, 15:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Cunningham) wrote:
> --- vladimir konrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think that I understand basic relational theory but then I had an
> > idea.
> > Basically, instead of adding field to a table every time there is a
> > need for it, have a table s
> On febr. 2, 15:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Cunningham) wrote:
> > --- vladimir konrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that I understand basic relational theory but
> then I had an
> > > idea.
> > > Basically, instead of adding field to a table every time
> there is a
> > > nee
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 03:08 -0500, Lew wrote:
> SunWuKung wrote:
> > I always thought that having nullable columns in a table is a Bad
> > Thing (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191178.aspx) and
>
> Ridiculous. The argument provided in that article is specious and likely SQL
> Serve
SunWuKung wrote:
I always thought that having nullable columns in a table is a Bad
Thing (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191178.aspx) and
Ridiculous. The argument provided in that article is specious and likely SQL
Server-specific. NULLable columns should occur wherever your da
