Re: SQL Server 2000 Migrate to Oracle

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 18:24:30 +1100
Message-ID: <41a6da23$0$12876$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Noons wrote:
> 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.

But would you be so keen on
EXCESSIVELONGOBJECTNAMESTHATHELPYOUFINDWHERETHEHECKISUPANDDOWN? Ot are you after case sensitivity by default, too?

Regards
HJR Received on Fri Nov 26 2004 - 01:24:30 CST