Re: Is Oracle SQL99 Compliant?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:37:36 -0800
Message-ID: <41e89e05_1@127.0.0.1>

GreyBeard wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:28:07 -0800, Serge Rielau wrote:
>
>

>>GreyBeard wrote:
>>
>>>Funny how adherence to standard becomes important when discussed by the
>>>company promoting, or heavily influencing, the standard.  (Oh, sorry ...
>>>that's just a mis-perception <g>)
>>
>>Standards aren't an IBM invention and by no means was IBM standard 
>>friendly to begin with. It's a lesson hard learned.
>>Oracle also participates in the SQL Standard (MS de facto does not).

>
>
> Very true. However, one must admit that the SQL standard has been, and
> is, very close to IBM's proposals.
>
>

>>The examples you brought up about saving lots of money would apply 
>>formost for functionality.
>>The cost of moving between vendors does not mainly come from these 
>>features. It comes from the more subtle incompatibilities that spread in 
>>a cancerous fashion through the app.
>>Note that the market (mostly ISVs) eventually do bring vendors back in line.
>>Hands on examples would be compliant outer join syntax on one hand, and 
>>  sequences and identity being standardized on the other.
>>

>
>
> Surely by now you have had a chance to read the first few chapters of
> Thomas Kyte's "Effective Oracle by Design". (Just teasing ... I know
> it's not politically correct in your case.)
>
> Bottom line: SQL is SQL is SQL, and there is not a huge difference
> between Oracle and DB2 dialects. However, each vendor's internals requires
> differeent aproach to forming the SQL, especially in conjunction with a
> 3GL. For example, the COMMIT is there, but a COMMIT inside a 3GL lop
> could create a serious performance issue in some environments.
>
>

>>Adherence to standards or not is a major decision. You can agree with it 
>>or not. I just wanted to voice some words of caution.

>
>
> Acknowledged. Yes, I agree it's a major decision.
>
> I've noticed that a 'we must be compliant' decision is frequently made by
> the un-informed using the same rationalle as "No one gets fired for buying
> Microsoft"
>
> Unfortunately, my perception is that many do not treat with the effort
> and intelligence a major decision requires.
>
>

>>Just like I as an IBM employee selfishly see the cost of migration 
>>(causing me grief without end) an Oracle employee might see the 
>>subscription revenue stream :-)

>
>
> Or the developer/contractor might see "reinvent the wheel for $50/hour for
> the next 2500 hours".
>
> (BTW, since we're into disclosure - I'm ex-Oracle by 2 years, now
> independant.)
>
>

>>The problem is by no means specific to the industry. Try changing your 
>>cellphone company in North America and contrast that with Austria (you 
>>can even keep your #)
>>

>
>
> Having been around the phone industry for many years - the phone number
> part is not a North American standards problem. It's a 'big business'
> and 'bureacracy' problem. Why would the phone companies want to comply
> ... Any excuse will do ...
>
>

>>Cheers
>>Serge

>
>
> FGB
I think those that can ... do. And those that can't try to create standards to slow down those that can.

The entire concept of standards and rapid progress are essentially antithetical.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 22:37:36 CST