Where I work, we're being "forced" (because of hardware issues) to
upgrade our databases from old unsupported NT servers running
Microsoft SQL Server 7. Some people I work with want to go to SQL
Server 2000 then 2005 when it comes out. I'd prefer that we go the
Sybase/Unix route, especially since we are working in PHP and trying
to go more Unix/Linux.

I realize that both Sybase and MS SQL Server share the same code base
and some things are identical. However, since I have not worked with
Sybase a long time, I'm not sure of all the changes/new features.

We have a HUGE base of stored procedures in our application,
practically impossible to change/edit them all as part of a database
change.

I think that we may have some syntax issues with the following items,
if anyone could confirm/deny or just give me links to the current
Sybase docs that cover these, I'd appreciate it.

* join syntax, we use the "left outer join" in the "from"
clause style syntax
* derived tables, I don't recall ever seeing that these
were supported in Sybase
* the "Case" statement in queries, I don't ever recall
ever seeing these in Sybase

so if anyone knows anything about the compatibility issues above (or
other ones I'm not aware of) let me know

thanks in advance,
Mike

In article <8de36f2d.0408200525.7fb44867 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, mike_m_302
@yahoo.com says...
I use all 3 of those types of statements in Sybase Adaptive Server
Anywere 7, and 9 supports them as well. I doubt every single SP will
work perfectly, but I think the conversion effort would be minimal.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).

Adaptive Server Enterprise (ASE Sybase) has implemented your 3 functions.
According to release documentation I found these references
Case statement - release 11.5
ANSI joins - release 12.0
Derived tables - release 12.5.1

"Mike" <mike_m_302 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 06:25:44 -0700, Mike wrote:

All three of these are supported in the current version of Sybase (ASE
12.5.2).

You could easily download the developer edition of 12.5.2, set up a test
database and do a quick check to see how many of your procs would load...

Michael
--
Michael Peppler Data Migrations, Inc.
mpeppler (AT) peppler (DOT) org http://www.peppler.org/
Sybase T-SQL/OpenClient/OpenServer/C/Perl developer available for short or
long term contract positions - http://www.peppler.org/resume.html

I have to caution against switching. I work on SQL Server 2000, Sybase
ASE12.5 and Oracle 9i in a production environment. The headaches and major
code changes will be overwhelming when all you need to do is run an upgrade
script to move to newer hardware. If you really want a Linux/Unix platform
go all the way and switch to Oracle.

I don't want to be flamed, I am just suggesting that since you have so much
written for SQL Server now you would be much better off and better served
sticking with SQL Server. I am admittedly biased as work with more SQL
Server, but I always prefer to go the conservative approach. Rarely does
not end up with people liking you because of something cutting edge that you
did. They will remember how smooth the transition was, anything you can do
to make it smooth good for your career.

Just my 2 cents.

--

Code Wizard

"There is no patch for stupidity."

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 01:34:48 +0000, Code Wizard wrote:

Why do you feel that it'd be better to "go all the way" and switch to
Oracle instead of Sybase?

It seems to me that converting to Oracle would be a *lot* more work, as
Sybase and MS-SQL share a common heritage, and AFAIK the performance and
features of Oracle and Sybase are comparable.

Michael
--
Michael Peppler Data Migrations, Inc.
mpeppler (AT) peppler (DOT) org http://www.peppler.org/
Sybase T-SQL/OpenClient/OpenServer/C/Perl developer available for short or
long term contract positions - http://www.peppler.org/resume.html

Sorry, but would this be an upgrade?

"Mike" <mike_m_302 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Sorry, I needed to be more clear that was my fault. I meant that if you are
committed to a Linux path then go with Oracle. It will be a lot more work
but it is greatly supported by the Oracle guy.

My overall recommendation is to use SQL Server 2000. The upgrade will go
relative smoothly. Users will remember forever how they left on a Friday
and came back on a Monday and their database was faster. They will really
remember if they leave on a Friday and you are struggling for the next two
months to hunt down bugs because you switched database engines. SQL Server
2000 is stable and very well behaved. So is Sybase ASE 12.5. I say save
yourself the trouble and stick with Windows... perhaps ever Windows Server
2003 and SQL Server 2000. The transition will be smoother and there is
plenty of support from Microsoft on making that move.

Don't misinterpret what I say, I am not knocking any engine. I am saying
your migration will go more smoothly and help your business and your job
performance perception by staying with SQL Server 2000. Make you next new
project Sybase on Linux from the ground up. Sorry for any confusion, that
is what I get for replying to newsgroups while sleepy.

--

Code Wizard

"There is no patch for stupidity."

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:47:45 +0000, Code Wizard wrote:

Actually Sybase is very well supported on linux as well, hence my query.

Michael
--
Michael Peppler Data Migrations, Inc.
mpeppler (AT) peppler (DOT) org http://www.peppler.org/
Sybase T-SQL/OpenClient/OpenServer/C/Perl developer available for short or
long term contract positions - http://www.peppler.org/resume.html

Glad to hear it. That is within my current realm of experience so I did not
feel safe making that recommendation. However I still stand by my
recommendation for sticking with SQL Server 2000 and Using Sybase for a new
project. There are always new projects IT Departments live on new projects.

--

Code Wizard
"The DBA is the last line of defense between a bad idea and production."
"There is no patch for stupidity."