Re: Is Oracle SQL99 Compliant?

Serge Rielau wrote:

> I answered Mark's post in detail via email (which is what I saw first).
> To prevent the thread from exploding let me summarize:
> a) Any SQL reference out there details the SQL implemented by a product.
> The Oracle Ref also does not detail differences and limitations
> against SQL-2003 (who would blame them?)

And who would give a flying hairball either? I care about moving Oracle development from Linux to AIX or from Solaris to Windows. But why would I care if it was compliant with a standard not adhered to by any major commercial vendor. (and oh yes you are closer but close only counts in horseshoes as they say).

> b) FRED goes back to the early versions of DB2 (AFAIK) V2. With every
> release the incompatible differences dwindle as IBM adjusts its
> products to the SQL standard (as I said: IBM didn't get born into
> open standards - it's a lesson learned).

But being black has yet to stop IBM from pointing to the pot.

> c) As you check out Mark's list you will find that there are few
> incompatibilities in DML statements which is what app developers are
> concerned about.

But lots of them in the DDL which is why you ignore it.

This is where the expense is when enabling an app.

Depends on what you are doing.

> The expense is not in DDL differences and pysical design.

Sure is in many situations which is why you ignore it.

> When DML statements need to be written in a specific way to
> exploit the physical design SQL has missed the boat.

Not at all. It means the code has been optimized for the architecture. Consider the following:

Suppose Oracle was 100% standard SQL compliant. Would that change the fact that Oracle has a multi-version architecture that is substantially different from DB2's? That code would need to be changed to work? Do you feel some overwhelming urge to not use sequences because SQL Server doesn't have them?

> d) a typical example of DB2 cross-platform product development is
> the lack of "nested safepoint" support Mark pointed out for DB2
> for LUW. Safepoints were
> introduces into DB2 V8 for LUW GA. Nested safepoints were introduced
> in V8.2. In the next release of the reference the note quoted by Mark
> will be gone.

One down ... thousands to go. But credit where credit is due.

> Some customers want to exploit the products, others want to write
> portable code. Both have valid reasons. Different platforms have
> different requirements.

Agreed. But when one vendor starts whining about another that is almost always of sign of losing the marketing battle.

> Cheers
> Serge

Regards,

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)