Re: Differences between Oracle RDBMS and MS SQL Server

In article <MPG.149780f8ad79947e9896ab_at_news.bitstream.net>,   tdkannel_at_bitstream.net (Tim Kannel) wrote:
> > > - Oracle's handling of date/time strings is much less flexible
 than
> > > SQL server
> >
> > Yes, SQLServer can generate 100's of a second time slices ...
> > to that granularity.
>
> I wasn't referring to granularity. I was referring to
> SQL server's automatic conversion from strings to datetime values
 (Oracle
> is too restrictive on the format of the string unless you use the
 TO_DATE
> function), and SQL server's convenient date-related functions (eg.,
> dateadd(), datediff(), etc.).
>
> > Why in the world would you want a 100-character table or column
 name?
> > 30 characters are more than sufficient.
>
> I have groups of tables and groups of procedures with a certain
> naming convention within the group. Each item within the group has a
> certain prefix in the name, followed by a component that's more
 specific.
> The resulting identifiers are often more than 20 characters. If
 Oracle's
> identifier limit was at least 40 characters then I'd have much less
 reason
> to complain about it.
>
> >
> > > - AFAIK, Oracle has no equivalent to SQL server's "top n" in
 select
 clause
> > > (rownum comparisons don't count)
> >
> > And why don't ROWNUM comparisons count?
>
> rownum comparisons in the where clause don't work the same as "top n"
 when
> an "order by" clause is present.
>

Perhaps you haven't properly written the query:

select empno, dept, sal, hiredate
from (select empno, dept, sal, hiredate from emp order by empno) where rownum < 11;

For 8i this query will correctly return data for the top 10 empno values. I believe that makes the above a Top-N query.

--
David Fitzjarrell
Oracle Certified DBA


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.