Re: SQL Implementation
From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler_at_earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 05:39:32 GMT
Message-ID: <oe7gb.81$f%6.7_at_newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
>
>
> Presumably because it was a more recent and more "functional" set of
> specifications than the previous standards.
>
> Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
> explaining why...
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 05:39:32 GMT
Message-ID: <oe7gb.81$f%6.7_at_newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
Christopher Browne wrote:
> In the last exciting episode, bbadour_at_golden.net (Bob Badour) wrote:
>
>>"Ryan" <rgaffuri_at_cox.net> wrote in message news:<fQleb.32913$0Z5.25360_at_lakeread03>... >> >>>How well do todays databases implement SQL99? I dont think any are >>>certified. Will they be? >> >>More importantly, why would you want them to implement SQL99 ?
>
>
> Presumably because it was a more recent and more "functional" set of
> specifications than the previous standards.
>
> Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
> explaining why...
Have you looked at all the stuff that's in SQL-99? Some of it does not bear much thinking about. There's also a few useful tidbits. On average though, it got an awful lot of everything including the kitchen sink added to it.
-- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler_at_earthlink.net, jleffler_at_us.ibm.com Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/Received on Mon Oct 06 2003 - 07:39:32 CEST