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.
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
A clause is a disjunction of literals (or a single literal). A clause is called a Horn clause if it contains at most one positive literal. A formula is in conjunctive normal form (CNF) if it is a conjunction of clauses (or a single clause). For example, x 1 is a positive literal, ¬x 2 is a negative literal, and x 1 ∨ ¬x 2 is a clause.
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."