comp.databases.theory

• Date Index

---

• Book recall, -CELKO-
  • Re: Book recall, daveb
    • Re: Book recall, Bob Badour
    • Re: Book recall, -CELKO-
      • Re: Book recall, David Cressey
      • Re: Book recall, -CELKO-
      • Re: Book recall, Bob Badour
• Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate, Cimode
  • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate, DM Unseen
    • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (3): Qualifying as relation *any* predicate, Cimode
• Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
  • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
    • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), daveb
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
    • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), paul c
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), paul c
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bruce C. Baker
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), DBMS_Plumber
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Eric
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Eric
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Keith H Duggar
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Alfredo Novoa
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Larry Coon
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), David Cressey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Alfredo Novoa
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Alfredo Novoa
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listening to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bert Blink
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listening to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), daveb
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Eric
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Eric
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Eric
    • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), paul c
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), David Cressey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Roy Hann
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), David Cressey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Matthias Klaey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Marshall
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Jon Heggland
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), David Cressey
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Brian Selzer
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Bob Badour
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), paul c
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), paul c
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), Cimode
      • Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes), -CELKO-
      • Quod est veritas, David Cressey
• Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Cimode
  • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, David Cressey
    • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Cimode
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, David Cressey
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Cimode
  • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Brian Selzer
    • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, DBMS_Plumber
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Cimode
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, David Cressey
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, paul c
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, paul c
      • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, Brian Selzer
  • Re: Guidelines to a decent support of surrogate key implementation, -CELKO-
• Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (1): Concatenated Keys and Addition of Attributes, Cimode
• Little design mistakes that can easily be avoided (1): Concatenated keys and addition of columns, Cimode
  • Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes), David Cressey
    • Re: Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes), Cimode
    • Re: Stupid Database Tricks (was: Little Design Mistakes), Gene Wirchenko
    • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Bob Badour
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Marshall
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Roy Hann
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Cimode
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, paul c
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, David Cressey
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Roy Hann
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, David Cressey
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, daveb
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, hasta_l3
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Bob Badour
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, DBMS_Plumber
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, DBMS_Plumber
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, -CELKO-
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, David Cressey
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Roy Hann
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, David Cressey
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Roy Hann
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Roy Hann
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Cimode
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Bob Badour
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, paul c
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Cimode
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, hasta_l3
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Cimode
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Cimode
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, Bob Badour
      • Re: Stupid Database Tricks, hasta_l3
  • Re: Little design mistakes that can easily be avoided (1): Concatenated keys and addition of columns, Gene Wirchenko
• JOB POSTING: Looking for a senior database manager /department head/ architecture, ezduffy
  • Re: JOB POSTING: Looking for a senior database manager /department head/ architecture, Jan M. Nelken
• constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Marshall
  • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
  • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
    • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
    • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, David Portas
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Bob Badour
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Brian Selzer
    • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
      • Re: constraints in algebra instead of calculus, paul c
• Question about "linking tables", Kevin Porter
  • Re: Question about "linking tables", Bob Stearns
    • Re: Question about "linking tables", Kevin Porter
  • Re: Question about "linking tables", David Cressey
  • Re: Question about "linking tables", Bob Badour
  • Re: Question about "linking tables", Neo
• GROUP BY, Marshall
  • Re: GROUP BY, Bob Badour
  • Re: GROUP BY, David Cressey
    • Re: GROUP BY, Marshall
      • Re: GROUP BY, David Cressey
  • Re: GROUP BY, Gene Wirchenko
  • Re: GROUP BY, paul c
  • Re: GROUP BY, Marshall
    • Re: GROUP BY, Brian Selzer
      • Re: GROUP BY, Marshall
      • Re: GROUP BY, Bob Badour
      • Re: GROUP BY, Brian Selzer
      • Re: GROUP BY, Brian Selzer
      • Re: GROUP BY, Brian Selzer
    • Re: GROUP BY, Gene Wirchenko
  • Re: GROUP BY, David Portas
    • Re: GROUP BY, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: GROUP BY, Lennart
      • Re: GROUP BY, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: GROUP BY, Lennart
      • Re: GROUP BY, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: GROUP BY, Lennart
      • Re: GROUP BY, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: GROUP BY, V.J. Kumar
      • Re: GROUP BY, Lennart
      • Re: GROUP BY, David Portas
    • Re: GROUP BY, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: GROUP BY, Bob Badour
      • Re: GROUP BY, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: GROUP BY, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: GROUP BY, Bob Badour
  • Re: GROUP BY, David Cressey
• Databasescheme with UML, Christian Bruckhoff
  • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Bob Badour
  • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Goran Mandinic
    • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Jon Heggland
      • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Eric
      • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Goran Mandinic
      • Re: Databasescheme with UML, Jon Heggland
  • Re: Databasescheme with UML, dawn
• naive questions about nested intervals with Farey fractions, blacksqr
  • Re: naive questions about nested intervals with Farey fractions, Vadim Tropashko
• two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, artev
  • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, Lennart
  • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, Ed Prochak
    • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, Gene Wirchenko
    • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, artev
      • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, Ed Prochak
      • Re: two db: is possible to limit the access of the users?, Bob Badour
• Comparing two Oracle Databases, kalai
  • Re: Comparing two Oracle Databases, Harm Olthof
• bags vs. sets, Marshall
  • Re: bags vs. sets, Bob Badour
    • Re: bags vs. sets, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: bags vs. sets, Bob Badour
      • Re: bags vs. sets, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: bags vs. sets, David Cressey
      • Re: bags vs. sets, Bob Badour
  • Re: bags vs. sets, Gene Wirchenko
  • Re: bags vs. sets, David Cressey
  • Re: bags vs. sets, Brian Selzer
• Isolation levels, Razvan Socol
  • Re: Isolation levels, V.J. Kumar
  • Re: Isolation levels, Brian Selzer
    • Re: Isolation levels, Razvan Socol
• set builder notation for relational division, Marshall
  • Re: set builder notation for relational division, Vadim Tropashko
  • Re: set builder notation for relational division, Vadim Tropashko
• Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Vadim Tropashko
  • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Marshall
    • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Jon Heggland
      • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Marshall
      • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Relational symmetric difference is well defined, Vadim Tropashko
• how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, ErkanY
  • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, Cimode
    • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, ErkanY
      • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, Cimode
      • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, David Cressey
      • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, kerad
  • Re: how different indexing techniques work as dimensionality increases?, -CELKO-
• Generating binary and ternary trees in teh neste4d sets model, -CELKO-
• Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
  • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
    • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
  • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
    • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Bob Badour
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Brian Selzer
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, David Cressey
  • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Kevin Kirkpatrick
    • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Bob Badour
    • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: Self Joins and optimization, Vadim Tropashko
• more closed-world chatter, paul c
  • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
    • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David Cressey
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David Cressey
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David Cressey
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, paul c
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David BL
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David Cressey
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David BL
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David BL
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David BL
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, David BL
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Vadim Tropashko
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Jon Heggland
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Marshall
  • Re: more closed-world chatter, Brian Selzer
  • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
    • Re: more closed-world chatter, David Cressey
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Bob Badour
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
      • Re: more closed-world chatter, Cimode
• 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?, Marshall
    • 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?, Bob Badour
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, Marshall
      • Re: Is it possible to use a database though any high-level API?, David Cressey
• Re: Newbie question on table design., Ed Prochak
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., -CELKO-
    • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Frank Hamersley
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., -CELKO-
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Frank Hamersley
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Message not available
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Gene Wirchenko
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Frank Hamersley
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., paul c
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Bob Badour
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., David Cressey
      • Re: Newbie question on table design., Anne & Lynn Wheeler
  • Re: Newbie question on table design., Alvin Ryder
• Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, David Cressey
  • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, Frank Hamersley
    • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, paul c
      • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, David Cressey
      • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, paul c
      • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, Bob Badour
      • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, Frank Hamersley
  • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, Bob Hairgrove
    • Re: Newsgroup Signal to Noise Ratio, Frank Hamersley
• Newbie question about design, idaku2
  • Re: Newbie question about design, Bob Badour
• Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Vadim Tropashko
  • 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, Vadim Tropashko
      • 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
  • <Possible follow-ups>
  • 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, Bob Badour
    • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Marshall
  • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Gene Wirchenko
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, 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, paul c
      • 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, paul c
      • 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, Bob Badour
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Gene Wirchenko
      • 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, Gene Wirchenko
      • 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, Gene Wirchenko
      • 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, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, -CELKO-
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Gene Wirchenko
      • 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, Bob Badour
      • 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, 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, 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, Bob Badour
      • 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, 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, 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, Cimode
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Bob Badour
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, Jon Heggland
      • 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, Jon Heggland
      • Message not available
      • 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, -CELKO-
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, DBMS_Plumber
  • 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, -CELKO-
    • 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, -CELKO-
    • 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, Kevin Kirkpatrick
      • 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, Kevin Kirkpatrick
      • 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, -CELKO-
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, -CELKO-
  • Re: A new proof of the superiority of set oriented approaches: numerical/time serie linear interpolation, TroyK
    • 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, Alvin Ryder
    • 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, Alvin Ryder

We are proud to have Web Hosting and Rack Housing from 9 Net Avenue Deutschland.
(11)