Thread: SQL99
Hello! PortgreSQL is implementing full SQL99 specification? In which relase? Where can i find further info about ANSI SQL 99 and others DBMS which implement SQL 99? Thanks in advance!
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 02:38:05PM -0200, Valdir H. Dias Leite wrote: > Hello! Tudo bem Valdir? > PortgreSQL is implementing full SQL99 specification? In which relase? No. > Where can i find further info about ANSI SQL 99 and others DBMS which > implement SQL 99? AFAIK, there is not a single database vendor who has implemented full SQL99. It probably won't happen in the near future. PostgreSQL complies to a lot of the standard. -Roberto -- +----| http://fslc.usu.edu USU Free Software & GNU/Linux Club |------+ Roberto Mello - Computer Science, USU - http://www.brasileiro.net http://www.sdl.usu.edu - Space Dynamics Lab, Developer Monday is a bad way to spend 1/7 of your life.
You should worry about whether your chosen DBMS will support the necessary features for your application. You should not worry about whether it meets a checklist requirement of SQL99, to my knowledge no database, commercial or otherwise, does. As it happens, Postgre supports a wider portion of the standard than most. But it's important to realize that nearly all the DMBS's out there support the same feature and enable the same programming techniques as are stated in SQL99, just with differing syntax. In terms of the standard itself, there are vast portions of the extended standard that vendors have declaired they do not intend to impliment. A better way to ask this question is: of the features I plan to use for my application, which databases expose those features with SQL99 syntax? This is what governs your application being portable. The SQL99 standard is online. If I recall, it's about 2,000 pages. > PortgreSQL is implementing full SQL99 specification? In which relase? > > Where can i find further info about ANSI SQL 99 and others DBMS which > implement SQL 99? > > Thanks in advance!
Jason Watkins wrote: > > The SQL99 standard is online. If I recall, it's about 2,000 pages. Where? Jochem
At 23:50 2001-10-29 , Robert Mello wrote: > > Where can i find further info about ANSI SQL 99 and others DBMS which > > implement SQL 99? > >AFAIK, there is not a single database vendor who has implemented full >SQL99. It probably won't happen in the near future. Yeah. Considering that no vendor has yet to implement full SQL-92 I guess it will take a long time before anyone complies to full SQL-99... However, Mimer SQL (http://www.mimer.com) has promised to be core SQL-99 compliant with their next release due in spring 2002.
Folks, > Yeah. Considering that no vendor has yet to implement full SQL-92 I > guess > it will take a long time before anyone complies to full SQL-99... Plus some folks don't think SQL99 was such a keen idea. Kline, Kline & Kline from O'Reilly, for example, seem to think that most of the changes between the two versions were vendor-inspired and don't do anything to improve database-building. For example, the huge focus on BLOB support in SQL 99 begs the question: Should BLOBs be stored in the database at all? Many DBAs would say no ... I'm sticking with SQL92. -Josh ______AGLIO DATABASE SOLUTIONS___________________________ Josh Berkus Complete informationtechnology josh@agliodbs.com and data management solutions (415) 565-7293 for law firms, small businesses fax 621-2533 and non-profit organizations. San Francisco
At 22:10 2001-11-06 , you wrote: >Plus some folks don't think SQL99 was such a keen idea. Kline, Kline & >Kline from O'Reilly, for example, seem to think that most of the changes >between the two versions were vendor-inspired and don't do anything to >improve database-building. For example, the huge focus on BLOB support >in SQL 99 begs the question: Should BLOBs be stored in the database at >all? Many DBAs would say no ... > >I'm sticking with SQL92. Yes. You may be right in that many SQL-99 features don't really offer significant improvements in database building. The basics were already there in SQL-92. But I don't agree that SQL-99 has a 'huge focus on BLOB support'. Yes, LOB:s are defined in the standard but it includes more than that. Many of those other features are requested and used by developers, like stored procedures, user defined functions and triggers.