comp.databases.theory

• Date Index

• A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
    • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Bob Badour
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Bob Badour
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, paul c
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, David Cressey
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, paul c
    • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
    • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Tonkuma
    • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Cimode
• Unrepeatable Read: why a problem, Ravi
  • Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem, V.J. Kumar
    • Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem, Ravi
  • Re: Unrepeatable Read: why a problem, Bob Badour
• newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?, Jason S
  • Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?, Bob Badour
    • Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?, Jason S
  • Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?, Vadim Tropashko
  • Re: newsgroup for asking general SQL questions?, Thomas Gagne
• Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, paul c
  • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, Vadim Tropashko
    • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, Vadim Tropashko
    • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, paul c
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, paul c
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, paul c
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: Why relational division is so uncommon?, paul c
• Newbie question on table design., somedeveloper
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., Brian Selzer
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., Cimode
    • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Brian Selzer
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., -CELKO-
    • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., -CELKO-
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
    • Re: Newbie question on table design., Brian Selzer
• temporal data constraints, davis . jeffrey
  • Re: temporal data constraints, Vadim Tropashko
• temporal data constraint, davis . jeffrey
  • Re: temporal data constraint, Brian Selzer
  • Re: temporal data constraint, Jon Heggland
• Naming Conventions?, Karen Hill
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, Bob Badour
    • Re: Naming Conventions?, Karen Hill
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?), Jonathan Leffler
      • Re: Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?), Bob Badour
      • Re: Simonyi was in space - back already (Was: Naming Conventions?), Marshall
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Andy Dingley
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Alfredo Novoa
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Marshall
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, David BL
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Marshall
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, David BL
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, Gints Plivna
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, jefftyzzer
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, jefftyzzer
    • Re: Naming Conventions?, mAsterdam
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, mAsterdam
    • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, mAsterdam
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
      • Re: Naming Conventions?, paul c
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, jefftyzzer
  • Re: Naming Conventions?, Gints Plivna
• predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, davis . jeffrey
  • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, Bob Badour
    • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, Marshall
      • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, Bob Badour
      • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, Marshall
      • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, David BL
    • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, davis . jeffrey
      • Re: predicate, constraints, header, relvar, and relation, Bob Badour
• Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Cimode
  • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Jonathan Leffler
    • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, mAsterdam
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, paul c
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Bob Badour
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, paul c
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, paul c
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Jonathan Leffler
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, Bob Badour
      • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, paul c
    • Re: Definition of reference - was Continuation - An attempt at retriggering thought about past subjects, mAsterdam
• Signing relational databases, Julien Lafaye
  • Re: Signing relational databases, Marshall
    • Re: Signing relational databases, Julien Lafaye
      • Re: Signing relational databases, Marshall
      • Re: Signing relational databases, Jonathan Leffler
      • Re: Signing relational databases, mountain man
      • Re: Signing relational databases, David BL
• Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients., anthony . galano
  • Re: Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients., Marshall
  • Re: Designing a database system for multiple autonomous clients., Thomas Gagne
• Re: A database theory resource - ideas, Bob Badour
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: A database theory resource - ideas, Bob Badour
• Many To Many Relationships, Loon
  • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Cimode
  • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Tonkuma
    • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Tonkuma
  • Re: Many To Many Relationships, David Cressey
    • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Marshall
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, David Cressey
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Marshall
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, David Cressey
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Bob Badour
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, mAsterdam
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, mAsterdam
      • Re: Many To Many Relationships, Brian Selzer
• delete cascade, paul c
  • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
    • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, Marshall
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, David Cressey
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, mAsterdam
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
      • Re: delete cascade, paul c
      • Re: delete cascade, David BL
  • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
    • Re: delete cascade, jonnie
      • Re: delete cascade, Brian Selzer
      • Re: delete cascade, Bob Badour
• cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), mAsterdam
  • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Mike Preece
    • [MultiValue] Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), dawn
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Mike Preece
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), dawn
    • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV], mAsterdam
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV], Mike Preece
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV], dawn
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [MV], paul c
  • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
    • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], mAsterdam
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Bob Badour
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost), Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], mAsterdam
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], mAsterdam
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Bob Badour
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Bob Badour
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], paul c
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Bob Badour
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], David Cressey
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], David BL
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Brian Selzer
      • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 [Transaction], Brian Selzer
• Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, beachmountain
  • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Bob Badour
  • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Cimode
  • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Aloha Kakuikanu
    • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, jefftyzzer
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Aloha Kakuikanu
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Bob Badour
  • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Volker Hetzer
    • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, beachmountain
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, beachmountain
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, David Cressey
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, David Cressey
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, paul c
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, beachmountain
• Entity Relationship Diagrams, Gregc.
  • Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams, Roy Hann
  • Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams, David Cressey
    • Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams, Bob Badour
  • Re: Entity Relationship Diagrams, Bernard Peek
• Table acting as a relation table, Guy
  • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
    • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Guy
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Bob Badour
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Guy
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Bob Badour
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Bob Badour
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Marshall
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, David Cressey
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, David Cressey
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Guy
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Guy
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Guy
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Lennart
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, David Cressey
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Bob Badour
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, David Cressey
      • Re: Table acting as a relation table, Bob Badour
• Where is everybody?, Marshall
  • Re: Where is everybody?, Bob Badour
  • Re: Where is everybody?, David Cressey
  • Re: Where is everybody?, Keith H Duggar
    • Re: Where is everybody?, Bob Badour
  • Re: Where is everybody?, Aloha Kakuikanu
    • Re: Where is everybody?, Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Marshall
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Aloha Kakuikanu
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Aloha Kakuikanu
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Marshall
      • Re: Where is everybody?, Marshall
    • Re: Where is everybody?, Marshall
    • Re: Where is everybody?, Bob Badour
• MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
  • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, paul c
    • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
  • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Aloha Kakuikanu
    • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
    • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, paul c
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Jon Heggland
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, paul c
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, paul c
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Bob Badour
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, paul c
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Bob Badour
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Brian Selzer
    • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Bob Badour
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Marshall
      • Re: MERGE as the imperative form of aggregation, Bob Badour
• SQL Joins question, jeff . lawrence
  • Re: SQL Joins question, David Portas
  • Re: SQL Joins question, Cimode
• Database design of stock prices?, knguyen
  • Re: Database design of stock prices?, DBMS_Plumber
  • Re: Database design of stock prices?, jefftyzzer
    • Re: Database design of stock prices?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database design of stock prices?, jefftyzzer
      • Re: Database design of stock prices?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database design of stock prices?, knguyen
• Database Design Patterns?, aj
  • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, aj
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, aj
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Doug Morse
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Marshall
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, JOG
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, jlowery
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, paul c
  • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Vadim Tropashko
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Vadim Tropashko
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Jonathan Leffler
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, mAsterdam
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bruce C. Baker
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, jefftyzzer
  • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Bruce C. Baker
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Drago Ganic
  • Re: Database Design Patterns?, jefftyzzer
    • Re: Database Design Patterns?, Aloha Kakuikanu
• Infix operator names, David Cressey
  • Re: Infix operator names, Bruce C. Baker
• data mining, binayaj
  • Re: data mining, jefftyzzer
• Re: OT: SICP Footnote, Gene Wirchenko
• Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, David Cressey
  • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, Marshall
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, David Cressey
    • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, Marshall
      • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, David Cressey
      • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, JOG
  • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, paul c
    • Re: Bidirectional Binary Self-Joins, Marshall
• for fawne: extremely interesting nntp groups - ayho - (1/1), nat
• Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm, littldo
  • Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm, Bob Badour
    • Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm, littldo@xxxxxxxxx
  • Re: Problems w/ SQL Insert with a static parm, Lennart
• Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Cimode
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bruce C. Baker
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, David Cressey
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, David Cressey
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, David Cressey
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Gene Wirchenko
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, David Cressey
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, paul c
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, David Cressey
      • Re: choice of character for relational division, Bob Badour
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, -CELKO-
  • Re: choice of character for relational division, Aloha Kakuikanu
    • Re: choice of character for relational division, Marshall

• Security
• UNIX
• Linux
• Coding
• Usenet

• Archive
• About
• Privacy
• Search
• Imprint