Re: oracle sequence numbers

Pablo Sanchez <pablo_at_dev.null> wrote in message news:<Xns9305D245F7D12pingottpingottbah_at_216.166.71.233>...
> tonkuma_at_jp.ibm.com (Tokunaga T.) wrote in
> news:8156d9ae.0301161913.4c8230b5_at_posting.google.com:
>
> > Microsoft's "SQL Server Books Online: Transact-SQL Reference" says
> >
> > [ snipped ]
> >
> > timestamp is used typically as a mechanism for version-stamping table
> > rows.
>
> Exactly. I'm not sure what the point of your follow-on post was
> though. I think I clearly showed that Sybase ASE and SQL Server 2000
> both behave as I originally posted and the above documentation simply
> documents how the systems perform. Soooooooooooo, I'm not sure what your
> point was/is? Was it to show that SQL Server and Sybase ASE are not in line
> with SQL-92? Sybase has been around way before SQL-92.
The timestamp of MS SQL Server and Sybase are the different kind of object than that of SQL-92.
The timestamp that Joel, Paul and Bob are mentioned are timestamp of SQL-92.   Even Microsoft acknowledged that their timestamp is different from standard.
They said "A future release of ... may modify the behavior of the Transact-SQL timestamp data type to align it with the behavior defined in the standard." and "... the current timestamp data type will be replaced with a rowversion data type."  

So, it will be better to use "rowversion" than "timestamp" in SQL Server to avoid confusion.
Again Microsoft recommend that "Use rowversion instead of timestamp wherever possible in DDL statements."  

SQL Server SQL-92
timestamp (No equivalent)
datetime timestamp Received on Fri Jan 17 2003 - 08:29:28 CET