SQL Implementation

#11

Christopher Browne wrote:

Quote:

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote:

"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

One useful feature: savepoints and explicit transaction boundaries.
One dubious feature: table inheritance

--
Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h>
Email: jleffler (AT) earthlink (DOT) net, jleffler (AT) us (DOT) ibm.com
Guardian of DBD::Informix v2003.04 -- http://dbi.perl.org/

#12

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 05:39:32 +0000, Jonathan Leffler wrote:

Quote:

One useful feature: savepoints and explicit transaction boundaries.
One dubious feature: table inheritance

While they may not be very widely implemented yet, I think that the
following new features are at least potentially nice:

- triggers
- BOOLEAN and BLOB data types
- more cases where views may be updateable
- more built-in functions like ABS() end such
- user defined types

I doubt that _core_ SQL-1999 is _much_ larger/more bloated than SQL-92.
According to section C.2 of [1], SQL-1999 actually cleans up some stuff
from SQL-92.

Reference 1:
http://www.bhusa.com/computing/us/su...sbn=1558604561

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark

#13

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote:
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

Quote:

Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
explaining why...

It's regressive.

#14

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) would write:

Quote:

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote:
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
explaining why...

It's regressive.

I was expecting to see more than two words in explanation. That's not
any better than responding to the one word "Why?" with "Because",
leaving everyone none the wiser.

"It's regressive" is not much of an explanation. In fact, I can't see
any useful difference between "It's regressive" and not bothering to
respond at all.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
Do you know where your towel is?

#15

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) would write:
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote:
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
explaining why...

It's regressive.

I was expecting to see more than two words in explanation. That's not
any better than responding to the one word "Why?" with "Because",
leaving everyone none the wiser.

"It's regressive" is not much of an explanation. In fact, I can't see
any useful difference between "It's regressive" and not bothering to
respond at all.

I did what you requested. If you don't like my explanation, I do not
care. That's your problem.

This is not a newsgroup for a grammar school or highschool level
subject area. Everyone who reads this newsgroup has an obligation to
educate themselves sufficiently to fully comprehend the causes and the
consequences of SQL99's regression. If you have not, you have failed
to meet your obligation to me.

#16

bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote in message news:<cd3b3cf.0310081334.61165a6d (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

Quote:

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) would write:
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote:
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would warrant
explaining why...

It's regressive.

I was expecting to see more than two words in explanation. That's not
any better than responding to the one word "Why?" with "Because",
leaving everyone none the wiser.

"It's regressive" is not much of an explanation. In fact, I can't see
any useful difference between "It's regressive" and not bothering to
respond at all.

I did what you requested. If you don't like my explanation, I do not
care. That's your problem.
Great Social Skills Bob, you should teach a class

Quote:

This is not a newsgroup for a grammar school or highschool level
subject area.
Then why are you posting here?

Everyone who reads this newsgroup has an obligation to

Quote:

educate themselves sufficiently to fully comprehend the causes and the
consequences of SQL99's regression. If you have not, you have failed
to meet your obligation to me.
No one owes you anything.

Bob you are an Idiot

#17

"PatrickL" <platimer (AT) p-a-link (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:

bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour) wrote in message
news:<cd3b3cf.0310081334.61165a6d (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob
Badour) would write:
Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

In the last exciting episode, bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net (Bob Badour)
wrote:
"Ryan" <rgaffuri (AT) cox (DOT) net> wrote

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.

It's certainly a more recent document and adds a lot of complexity.
Presuming greater functionality presumes much.

Perhaps you think it a poor idea to implement SQL99; it would
warrant
explaining why...

It's regressive.

I was expecting to see more than two words in explanation. That's not
any better than responding to the one word "Why?" with "Because",
leaving everyone none the wiser.

"It's regressive" is not much of an explanation. In fact, I can't see
any useful difference between "It's regressive" and not bothering to
respond at all.

I did what you requested. If you don't like my explanation, I do not
care. That's your problem.
Great Social Skills Bob, you should teach a class

I don't participate here to demonstrate my social skills. I participate here
to awaken the somnolent.

Quote:

This is not a newsgroup for a grammar school or highschool level
subject area.
Then why are you posting here?

To suit myself.

Quote:

Everyone who reads this newsgroup has an obligation to
educate themselves sufficiently to fully comprehend the causes and the
consequences of SQL99's regression. If you have not, you have failed
to meet your obligation to me.
No one owes you anything.

Nor do I owe anyone anything--and that includes civility.

#18

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Bob Badour" <bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net> would write:

Quote:

Nor do I owe anyone anything--and that includes civility.

If you behave with sufficient incivility, this injures your own
reputation, and encourages people to _want_ to disagree with you, and
to dislike the idea of coming to any agreement.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/spreadsheets.html
FLORIDA: Where your vote counts and counts and counts.

#19

"Christopher Browne" <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> wrote

Quote:

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Bob Badour" <bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net
would write:
Nor do I owe anyone anything--and that includes civility.

If you behave with sufficient incivility, this injures your own
reputation

It does not harm my intellectual reputation among the educated and
intelligent.

Quote:

, and encourages people to _want_ to disagree with you, and
to dislike the idea of coming to any agreement.

I intend it to goad people, and I do not care what it goads the invincibly
ignorant to do.

#20

joe.celko (AT) northface (DOT) edu (--CELKO--) wrote in message news:<a264e7ea.0310031046.349c55c1 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

Quote:

PL/I?: God, no!

It compiled to over three times the size of a COBOL program to do the
same job, and ALWAYS ran. Never mind that you wanted it to stop. The
automatic type conversions could suddenly give you a payroll with
complex numbers instead of a warning.

Didn't PL/I programmers get special keyboards with one extra key
marked "Default" ?

Quote:

Algol-68? with pleasure

No, no, no. Algol-60 was a pleasure. Algol-65 was a clean up.
Algol-68 was so complex that there were only three compilers for it
(one was the Royal Radar guys in teh UK and I don't remember the other
two -- colleges, I think). I still have the specs for it; I still
cannot understand the meta-meta-language they invented.

Algol-60 was almost a pleasure; but I can't say I can approve of any
language where it's impossible to write a truly general swap procedure
! The Russians were pretty keen on Algol-68 - I'm sure somebody in St
Petersburg did a Windows95 implementation, and I've even got a Linux
interpreter for it - but I'm not sure whether anyone ever did a
full-on implementation of truly general modes. (I lasted three pages
of the official report - and I only kept plugging away to 3 so I could
beat someone else's 2-and-a-half.)

Quote:

ADA? it's still alive and kicking

Nope. The Ada mandate was killed on 1998 Oct 01.

Goodbye and good riddance to bad rubbish, says I.

Quote:

I was with AIRMICS
when ADA was created and had to write code in it without a compiler.
The thing was awful and the first compilers took a year longer than
planned because of the complexity. As InfoTech put it, there was no
way to build a kernel then add to it to get a full language compiler
-- you had to create the entire language all at once.

And this was *by design* ! It was a declared intention that there
should be no subsets of Ada - so why on earth did they throw every
feature they could think of (and then some) into it ?

Quote:

A New York
University built a compiler in SETL which had one error message and we
played with that.

I know of a student Pascal compiler that had one error message - and
one that doesn't bear repeating in polite company at that...

- Tony