Re: header part of the value?


"Marshall" <marshall.spight@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f0ff1aa3-b174-4f74-9ad4-ded4f9716424@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Occasionally the question has come up as to whether a
relation value is the body, or the body+the header. In the past
I've sided with the just-the-body approach, but today I decided
that I don't think that anymore.


Could two relations have the equivalent bodies, but distinct headers?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: header part of the value?
    ... I've sided with the just-the-body approach, ... The natural join specification *requires* the header; ... hold on a tootin minute there cowboy...why would it lead you ... partial functions, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: header part of the value?
    ... I've sided with the just-the-body approach, ... The natural join specification *requires* the header; ... one of the homonymous columns, equijoins do not under all definitions ... If the relation is empty, i.e, ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: header part of the value?
    ... I've sided with the just-the-body approach, ... The natural join specification *requires* the header; ... partial functions, ... Then the value bound to the relvar would be the empty set. ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: header part of the value?
    ... I've sided with the just-the-body approach, ... The natural join specification *requires* the header; ... much of the current interest in programming languages ...
    (comp.databases.theory)