Re: Is Oracle SQL99 Compliant?

On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:28:07 -0800, Serge Rielau wrote:

> GreyBeard wrote:

>> Funny how adherence to standard becomes important when discussed by the
>> company promoting, or heavily influencing, the standard.  (Oh, sorry ...
>> that's just a mis-perception <g>)

Very true. However, one must admit that the SQL standard has been, and is, very close to IBM's proposals.

>
> The examples you brought up about saving lots of money would apply
> formost for functionality.
> The cost of moving between vendors does not mainly come from these
> features. It comes from the more subtle incompatibilities that spread in
> a cancerous fashion through the app.
> Note that the market (mostly ISVs) eventually do bring vendors back in line.
> Hands on examples would be compliant outer join syntax on one hand, and
> sequences and identity being standardized on the other.
>

Surely by now you have had a chance to read the first few chapters of Thomas Kyte's "Effective Oracle by Design". (Just teasing ... I know it's not politically correct in your case.)

Bottom line: SQL is SQL is SQL, and there is not a huge difference between Oracle and DB2 dialects. However, each vendor's internals requires differeent aproach to forming the SQL, especially in conjunction with a 3GL. For example, the COMMIT is there, but a COMMIT inside a 3GL lop could create a serious performance issue in some environments.

> Adherence to standards or not is a major decision. You can agree with it
> or not. I just wanted to voice some words of caution.

Acknowledged. Yes, I agree it's a major decision.

I've noticed that a 'we must be compliant' decision is frequently made by the un-informed using the same rationalle as "No one gets fired for buying Microsoft"

Unfortunately, my perception is that many do not treat with the effort and intelligence a major decision requires.

> Just like I as an IBM employee selfishly see the cost of migration
> (causing me grief without end) an Oracle employee might see the
> subscription revenue stream :-)

Or the developer/contractor might see "reinvent the wheel for $50/hour for the next 2500 hours".

(BTW, since we're into disclosure - I'm ex-Oracle by 2 years, now independant.)

> The problem is by no means specific to the industry. Try changing your
> cellphone company in North America and contrast that with Austria (you
> can even keep your #)
>

Having been around the phone industry for many years - the phone number part is not a North American standards problem. It's a 'big business' and 'bureacracy' problem. Why would the phone companies want to comply ... Any excuse will do ...

> Cheers
> Serge

FGB Received on Fri Jan 14 2005 - 17:14:26 CST