Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In SQL, the TRUNCATE TABLE statement is a data manipulation language (DML) [1] operation that deletes all rows of a table without causing a triggered action. The result of this operation quickly removes all data from a table , typically bypassing a number of integrity enforcing mechanisms.
The CASE expression, for example, enables SQL to perform conditional branching within queries, providing a mechanism to return different values based on evaluated conditions. This logic can be particularly useful for data transformation during retrieval, especially in SELECT statements.
This clause currently is supported by CA DATACOM/DB 11, IBM DB2, SAP SQL Anywhere, PostgreSQL, EffiProz, H2, HSQLDB version 2.0, Oracle 12c and Mimer SQL. Microsoft SQL Server 2008 and higher supports FETCH FIRST, but it is considered part of the ORDER BY clause. The ORDER BY, OFFSET, and FETCH FIRST clauses are all required for this usage.
For example, in a table containing products, one could add a check constraint such that the price of a product and quantity of a product is a non-negative value: price >= 0 quantity >= 0 If these constraints were not in place, it would be possible to have a negative price (−$30) or quantity (−3 items).
Major DBMSs, including SQLite, [5] MySQL, [6] Oracle, [7] IBM Db2, [8] Microsoft SQL Server [9] and PostgreSQL [10] support prepared statements. Prepared statements are normally executed through a non-SQL binary protocol for efficiency and protection from SQL injection, but with some DBMSs such as MySQL prepared statements are also available using a SQL syntax for debugging purposes.
Truncation can be applied to any probability distribution.This will usually lead to a new distribution, not one within the same family. Thus, if a random variable X has F(x) as its distribution function, the new random variable Y defined as having the distribution of X truncated to the semi-open interval (a, b] has the distribution function
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
A third difference between the two cases was that the mining being regulated in this case was compared to a public nuisance, while the mining being regulated in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon was not. In this case, the Court held that there is not a taking if "the State merely restrains uses of property that are tantamount to public nuisances."