Domains Types Relational Theory by Date Chris (17 results)

Condition: New.

Paperback or Softback. Condition: New. Domains and Types in Relational Theory and SQL 1.11. Book.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Paperback. Condition: new. Paperback. What's a domain? What's a type? The original version of the relational model (defined by Codd in 1969) had domains and not types. The original version of the SQL standard (defined by committee in 1986, but based on work done by Boyce and Chamberlin et al. in the 1970s) had types and not domains. Later, Codd added types and SQL added domains. But no two of these constructs-domains per Codd, types per Codd, domains per SQL, types per SQL-are the same thing! Other researchers, designers, and implementers then got into the act with further definitions of their own, and the picture became, and remains, more confused than ever. This book is an attempt to clear the air. To be specific, it argues that: Domains per Codd aren't really domains in the mathematical sense but are much closer to types in the computing sense, and types per Codd don't belong in the model at all. Types per SQL are really several different concepts all mixed together in confusing ways, and domains per SQL are just a red herring. Properly understood, domains and types are the same thing after all. The book justifies these claims by describing and analyzing the pertinent aspects of both SQL and the relational model in detail. Shipping may be from multiple locations in the US or from the UK, depending on stock availability.

Condition: New. In.

Condition: New.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Paperback. Condition: new. Paperback. What's a domain? What's a type? The original version of the relational model (defined by Codd in 1969) had domains and not types. The original version of the SQL standard (defined by committee in 1986, but based on work done by Boyce and Chamberlin et al. in the 1970s) had types and not domains. Later, Codd added types and SQL added domains. But no two of these constructs-domains per Codd, types per Codd, domains per SQL, types per SQL-are the same thing! Other researchers, designers, and implementers then got into the act with further definitions of their own, and the picture became, and remains, more confused than ever. This book is an attempt to clear the air. To be specific, it argues that: Domains per Codd aren't really domains in the mathematical sense but are much closer to types in the computing sense, and types per Codd don't belong in the model at all. Types per SQL are really several different concepts all mixed together in confusing ways, and domains per SQL are just a red herring. Properly understood, domains and types are the same thing after all. The book justifies these claims by describing and analyzing the pertinent aspects of both SQL and the relational model in detail. Shipping may be from our UK warehouse or from our Australian or US warehouses, depending on stock availability.

Paperback. Condition: new. Paperback. What's a domain? What's a type? The original version of the relational model (defined by Codd in 1969) had domains and not types. The original version of the SQL standard (defined by committee in 1986, but based on work done by Boyce and Chamberlin et al. in the 1970s) had types and not domains. Later, Codd added types and SQL added domains. But no two of these constructs-domains per Codd, types per Codd, domains per SQL, types per SQL-are the same thing! Other researchers, designers, and implementers then got into the act with further definitions of their own, and the picture became, and remains, more confused than ever. This book is an attempt to clear the air. To be specific, it argues that: Domains per Codd aren't really domains in the mathematical sense but are much closer to types in the computing sense, and types per Codd don't belong in the model at all. Types per SQL are really several different concepts all mixed together in confusing ways, and domains per SQL are just a red herring. Properly understood, domains and types are the same thing after all. The book justifies these claims by describing and analyzing the pertinent aspects of both SQL and the relational model in detail. Shipping may be from our Sydney, NSW warehouse or from our UK or US warehouse, depending on stock availability.

PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Shipped from UK. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

PAP. Condition: New. New Book. Delivered from our UK warehouse in 4 to 14 business days. THIS BOOK IS PRINTED ON DEMAND. Established seller since 2000.

Paperback / softback. Condition: New. This item is printed on demand. New copy - Usually dispatched within 5-9 working days 503.

Condition: New. Print on Demand.

Condition: New. PRINT ON DEMAND.

Taschenbuch. Condition: Neu. nach der Bestellung gedruckt Neuware - Printed after ordering - What's a domain What's a type The original version of the relational model (defined by Codd in 1969) had domains and not types. The original version of the SQL standard (defined by committee in 1986, but based on work done by Boyce and Chamberlin et al. in the 1970s) had types and not domains. Later, Codd added types and SQL added domains. But no two of these constructs-domains per Codd, types per Codd, domains per SQL, types per SQL-are the same thing! Other researchers, designers, and implementers then got into the act with further definitions of their own, and the picture became, and remains, more confused than ever. This book is an attempt to clear the air. To be specific, it argues that: Domains per Codd aren't really domains in the mathematical sense but are much closer to types in the computing sense, and types per Codd don't belong in the model at all.Types per SQL are really several different concepts all mixed together in confusing ways, and domains per SQL are just a red herring.Properly understood, domains and types are the same thing after all.The book justifies these claims by describing and analyzing the pertinent aspects of both SQL and the relational model in detail.