Re: L:ist - Can do/do better in MS SQL than Oracle

From: tingl <tlam15_at_hotmail.com>
Date: 5 Apr 2002 09:18:03 -0800
Message-ID: <f487699f.0204050918.692b0766_at_posting.google.com>


The point being if you do not put double quotes around your table name, then it's not case sensitive. But it does not mean mixed case is not supported if you ever need it.

TurkBear <jgreco1_at_mn.rr.com> wrote in message news:<967pauo42e83fp39i4vrav8qa1u71j8pqa_at_4ax.com>...
> Imbedded comment-
>
> tlam15_at_hotmail.com (tingl) wrote:
>
> >I think what you are talking about here have more to do with
> >implementation and design differences rather than missing features. I
> >was talking about some things that can be done in one database just
> >flat out cannot be done in another in any way.
> >
> >> Oracle does not like mixed-case for tables and fields. (Lots
> >> of tools can not handle this).
> >
> >I am not sure what kind of tools you are using. I have no problems
> >with mixed case. Even it is a problem, it is just a matter of style.
> >It would be silly to say Windows file name being not case-sensitive a
> >missing feature.
> >
>
> If you create an Oracle table with some tool that allows the table names and field names to be created in mixed-case( some
> ETL tools, Access etc) ( or with a Create table "Mixed_Case_Name" ( "Field1" varchar2(10) , "Field2" varchar2(10) )
> statement )
> then to use SqlPlus ( for example ) to access that data you would need to use "s around the table_name and field name..
> select "Field1","Field2" from "Mixed_Case_Name"
>
> This is a problem unless you are aware of it...Not big, but sometimes annoying...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >benbrugman_at_onbekend.nl (Ben Brugman) wrote in message news:<3ca9d8d1.32919890_at_news.nl.uu.net>...
> >> On 28 Mar 2002 12:52:44 -0800, tlam15_at_hotmail.com (tingl) wrote:
> >>
> >> Well I have seen a few things you can't do in Oracle which you can
> >> in SQL-server.
> >>
> >> Use serializable and expect the transactions te be serializable.
> >> (Yes Oracle does prefent the phenomena's discribed in SQL-92,
> >> but I can come up with transactions which can not be serialized
> >> if run together on Oracle. And serializable means that there must
> >> be a garantee that all finished transactions should be serializable).
> >> example see the further on ##
> >>
> >> Some SQL-92 syntax queries where outer and inner joins are
> >> used in one query could not be expressed in the Oracle syntax
> >> without going to a completely different query.
> >>
> >> Oracle does not like mixed-case for tables and fields. (Lots
> >> of tools can not handle this).
> >>
> >> I do not want to go into the discussion which is better, but there
> >> are differences between the two RDBMSses. And I expect that
> >> anything which can be done on the one can one way or the other
> >> be done on the other. But some things involve a lot of work in
> >> one RDBMS and hardly any work in the other.
> >> My guess is this works both ways.
> >> (Try to implement a after/row trigger from Oracle in SQL-server).
> >>
> >>
> >> ben brugman.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ##
> >> Please do not read on if you are not interrested in the
> >> serializability discussion. This has been handled before on
> >> in several discussion groups.
> >>
> >> Serializable, standard example where the serializable of Oracle fails.
> >> Two accounts, with the business rule that the accounts together can
> >> not become sub zero. Withdrawels are done with writing extra
> >> information into the database (add a withdrawel row).
> >>
> >> Sequence:
> >> Set serializable
> >> Start transaction
> >> Read the amount available on the two accounts.
> >> See if there is enough money to do the withdrawel.
> >> Add the extra row for the withdrawel
> >> Commit.
> >>
> >> If this sequence is run concurrently (2 times) then it can result in a
> >> situation which can not happen if the sequence is run serialized (2
> >> times).
> >>
> >> For a more formal explenation see :
> >> Making Sapshot Isolation Serializable
> >> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~isotest/snaptest/snaptest.pdf
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Hi,
> >> >
> >> >I have worked with both SQL Server and Oracle. I have not seen
> >> >anything you can do with SQL Server that can't be done in Oracle. The
> >> >only advantage of SQL Server is ease of management and configuration.
> >> >It requires little attention most of the time, but the trade off here
> >> >is flexibility. With all things taken into consideration, I still
> >> >prefer Oracle to SQL Server. The main reasons are portability and
> >> >scalability. And most of all we do not want to be locked into any
> >> >single vendor.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Tony
> >> >www.w3base.com
> >> >
> >>
> >> Ben Brugman
Received on Fri Apr 05 2002 - 19:18:03 CEST

Original text of this message