RE: Anyone with experience with MMOG and databases?

>On 12/08/05, Marquez, Chris <cmarquez_at_collegeboard.org> wrote:
>
>> You may be right about Oracle being less "ISO SQL compliant", if that is
>> the foundation of your "don't use Oracle" case.
>> I don't know, but don't care really...and honestly it has never come up as
>> a "real" issue and any of the places I have worked...granted a majority of
>> those are mostly Oracle database...some SQL Server too.
>>
>
>A while back someone pointed me to this page:
>
>http://developer.mimer.com/validator/comparison/upd_comparison_chart.tml
>
>It compares Oracle 9i, DB2 7.2 and SQL-Server 2000 along with an RDBMS
>I'd never heard of before called Mimer SQL for complainace to ISO
>CORE:1999 SQL standard. It's based on an article at:
>
>http://www.dbazine.com/db2/db2-disarticles/gulutzan3
>

And the article at mimer.com is so inaccruate as to be a joke. Just take a look at a few examples

E151: Transaction Support ... a big *no* for DB2 and SQL Server. Well I'll be damned - that'll suprise a few hundred of my customers. Wait, look closer ... the sub-criteria (E151-01 and -02) are met by them all (commit and rollback), but somehow we've got Mimer and Oracle counted at the criteria heading level as well. That's does wonders for your compliance percentage :-)

F031-04 ALTER TABLE statement ... ADD COLUMN clause. What? SQL Server and Oracle *don't* have this. Hope you haven't been doing this since Oracle 8.0, people. You've been conned! The chart clearly tells you it's not possible. :-)

In all seriousness, it's easy to poke holes in this. Is anyone interested in a real comparison? I've got an old one drafted from a year or so back that I could resurrect in light of 10g, SS2005, DB2 8.2 and anything else people are interest in (yes, all those damn certifications have to be useful for something ... not just lining the floor of my canary's cage :-) ).

Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l