Re: Oracle vs. Sybase

Nuno Souto <nsouto_at_acay.com.au> wrote in article <33B1547E.4A18_at_acay.com.au>...

[pl/sql is good]
Thanks, I'm glad I misunderstood that... it would have put a damper on the app I'm working on if I couldn't use pl/sql.

And I'd have to agree that it's unlikely you'd get reasonable performance from a system by porting it straight over to Oracle, line by line (or vice versa for that matter). At the very least you'd have to worry about the differences in the optimizers (especially if you're using rule-based in Oracle). On the other hand, they're enough alike that in most cases you could carry the SQL over.

[new example]
> SELECT COUNT(COL_B) INTO VAR_A FROM TAB_A
> WHERE <complex condition_a>;
> DELETE FROM TAB_A
> WHERE <same complex condition_a as for SELECT above>;

Actually this implies that they're storing the count into a table called var_a, you may have meant:

        select @var_a = count(col_b) from tab_a where...

In either case, just as in Oracle, Sybase has a system variable (@@rowcount) that keeps the number of rows affected by the last query. Always has, least as long as I can remember. MS SQL Server does too.

So they could have done a select @var_a = @@rowcount after the delete if they wanted to.

[block size]
> I
> know that the block size may change in Sybase, but I was SPECIFICALLY
> referring to SQL Server as in the MS product.

Okay. I don't know off hand if you can still do the block size thing with MS Sql Server, but imho (I've worked with MS SQL Server for about a year and a half), there's a lot that would have to change in MS SQL Server before I'd consider it on par with Sybase or Oracle (like being able to keep it up for more than a few weeks at a time; though that might be a "feature" of NT not SQL Server!)

> > [snip]
> > Here I have to say you're wrong. Sybase had between from the
 beginning.
> > In fact it's essential for one of it's fundamental system tables. It's
> > been there for at least the 9-10 years I've worked with Sybase.
>
> Read again the original message, please. I didn't say "Sybase" don't
> have the between, I said I couldn't use it as the JOIN condition in MS
> "SQL Server"! There is a difference...

Okay, but it's in MS SQL Server too. MS SQL Server (at least through 6.5) uses the same between join that Sybase used for it's system table. Specifically it's:

	select <whatever>
	from sysusages u, sysdevices d
	where u.vstart between d.low and d.high

> Cheers and thanx for your feedback.

Right back at ya! <g> Received on Thu Jun 26 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT