Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

From: Noons <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au>
Date: 25 Nov 2004 23:14:15 -0800
Message-ID: <73e20c6c.0411252314.415924cf@posting.google.com>


HansF <news.hans_at_telus.net> wrote in message news:<JLupd.189555$df2.50302_at_edtnps89>...

>
> I suspect that DB2 would also have a lot of extensions if the standard
> didn't follow IBM so closely - and there has been a significant, although
> perhaps co-incidental <g>, history of the standard following IBM's
> well-thought-out suggestions.

Not that there is anything wrong with that! :)

> This is a thorn in virtually every cross-vendor environment. Expanding the
> minimum to 128 characters (or 1024) would permit the idiots who like
> excessivelyLongTableOrObjectNamesThatAreGenerallyMeaningless to be happy.

Count me firmly on the side of
excessiveLongObjectNamesThatHelpMeFindWhereTheHeckIsUpAndDown.

> And it would encourage consistency in design and development environments
> from a baseline SQL perspective because the schools would [inadvertently]
> teach to the standard again instead of SQLServer or MySQL proprietary
> extensions.

Bingo!

> But that, as they say, is just my opinion.

Not just yours... Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 01:14:15 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US