Re: Separation of DDL and DML - was: Early and late binding.
From: x <x_at_not-exists.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:04:30 +0200
Message-ID: <dr2uqo$reg$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:04:30 +0200
Message-ID: <dr2uqo$reg$1_at_domitilla.aioe.org>
"Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:510Bf.2155$Dk.888_at_newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> x wrote:
> > With a SQL DBMSs one is forced to separate DDL from DML which may or may
not
> > be a good thing.
>
> OK - I'm going to bite. In what respects does SQL enforce DDL separate
> from DML? And if you didn't do it the SQL way, how would you do it?
>
> I suspect I know parts of the answer to the first question - but I do
> not understand why you think it a bad thing. I have no ideas about the
> second question yet.
- I said an SQL DBMS force one, not SQL enforce. There are two kinds of data: the data and the metadata. There are two distinct languages: the DDL and the DML. With some SQL DBMS each DDL statement will generate an autocommit. There is also the three level architecture and the impact of DDL statements on the computing resources.