GreyBeard wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:51:28 -0800, seapearl1023 wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>My question is if Oracle Standard version is SQL99 Compliant? How about
>>Oracle Enterprise version?
>>
>
>
> Depends entirely on what you mean by 'compliant'. The standard actually
> includes several levels of compliance.
>
> In general, it's pretty close. If you look at the SQL Reference manual
> for the version you want, there's an entire section allocated to this.
> (This is Appendix B in Oracle9iR2 manuals st http://tahiti.oracle.com!)
>
> BTW: Standard and Enterprise are 'Editions' (effectively feature sets),
> not versions. Version is something like '8.1', '9.0', '9.2', '10.1'.
> Enterprise is a 100% superset of Standard and uses exacctly the same code
> base - AFAIK, the SQL is identical.
>
> Speculation: this kind of question is usually asked by people who want to
> write 'database independant' software. If that is true, please consider
> reading the first 3 chapters of Thomas Kyte's "Effective Oracle By Design"
> to understand why that is a bad idea.
>
> lol/FGB
Non adherence to standards drives cost in teh long run up.
It promotes vendor lock-in which you will regret when it comes to
renegotiations.
There is good reasons why client interfaces and app-servers have these
horrible abstraction layers. They are needed to do what DBMS don't
manage: standardize.
Whenever a standard is not adhered to consumers suffer in the end.
I think the realistic middle way is to stick to the SQL Standard
wherever possible and encapsulate proprietary extensions so they can be
dealt with. Your CFO will thank you.
There are literally thousands of locked in, unhappy customers out there
paying through their nose for their DBMS, not being able to move because
it would cost millions of dollars in labour - and the vendor knows it.
Cheers
Serge
Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 08:32:56 CST
