No, the SQL ANSI/ISO standards do not matter to me because of two reasons:
The first reason is that they frequently change. There was SQL89 ISO standard, then SQL92, then SQL99 and now SQL2003. Not only that, there are sub-standards within a standard. For example, SQL92 had four levels of standards: entry, transitional, intermediate and full. SQL99 had two: Core and enhanced.
The second and the main reason is that there is not a single database vendor that follows the standard 100%. Oracle, MSSQL, MySQL, DB2 and others, each partially conforms to a standard (and which standard version?)
So, why bother with SQL standards. During my career as an Oracle developer, I have never had the need to know whether this SQL feature follows a certain standard or not, I simply did not care. all what I cared about was to know, as much as I can, about what I use and specialize in, namely the Oracle database. However, as I said before, it is always good to know about the other databases.
Finally, I strongly agree with Tom Kyte who says in his latest book that database developers should make use of all the database features available to them even if a feature is vendor specific. They should fully exploit the database they are using, squeezing every bit of functionality out of it.
In other words, should a MSSQL developer not use the BIT datatype because Oracle does not support it or because it is not a “standard”? Should an Oracle developer not use the emp.deptno = dep.deptno type of join for example because it is not a standard? What is the use of a standard then?
Possibly related:
- Where Are You Women Bloggers?
- Oracle making JDeveloper free
- 9 Useful Links for 2008-01-04
- del.icio.us has joined the Yahoo! family
- What’s so special about the world cup?
Tagged iso, standard | Post a Comment
I still feel it’s good to have as at least it keeps a little common ground between the engines. It’s good to know that I can, and do, write queries against a number of different engines. I have to use different techniques for all of them, but I can do it.
Currently I have to help people write SQL against a Nucleus data warehouse. I’ve never even logged on to one. The reason I can provide some level of help is that both Oracle and Nucleus have some adherence to the SQL standard.
Just a thought
Cheers
Tim…
November 14th, 2005, at 11:36 pm #Good argument Eddie.
However, all things being equal, I believe it is better to choose an approach that fits the standard than not. (Remember: all things being equal).
It isn’t unusual to have to develop something against a particular standard, and to document any exceptions. So at the very least using the standard approach will be less documentation work.
If you’re like me and have to work with several databases, it is far easier to deal with implementations that are as close to the ANSI standard as possible.
Rob
November 15th, 2005, at 10:07 am #This is totally wrong and usually an excuse for “Cowboy Coding” by someone who got a certificate for only one product and has no education in RDMBS.
Us old farts remember when we had no standard database language or even a standard data model. It was a nightmare. Not only was the code locked into a single product, skills in one product did not move to another. The cost of having 1 or 2 programmers per product was one storng reason we moved to Standard SQL.
Code has to be maintained and ported. The only way I have seen to avoid this is to write code so bad, so proprietrary that either nobody wants it or it is cheaper to re-write it from scratch. This was called “job secure programming” in the old days
Remember that each new release of a product is a port. Is your vendor going to drop or change the standard parts of the product? No, not likely. But look at how many of the proprietary elements change from release to release.
Standards mean that programmers have a common language, so they agree on basic things like joins, data types. transaction control, etc. Consider how bad the outer joins were in Oracle and the Sybase family. Not only were both syntaxes weak, they did not have the same definition!
November 16th, 2005, at 11:22 am #Totaler Schwachsinn!
Mit Leuten wie Ihnen hätte es sowas wie Java wohl nie gegeben.
I write in German to disrespect you! Try to translate it without dictonary.
By the way, you can think of a dictonary as a standard. In fact, every code is a standard. A clear agreement between to Zeichensätzen ;-).
Try coding without clear agreements.
August 12th, 2008, at 11:10 am #Thank you all for commenting. You all have very good arguments.
Now, I’m off learning some German…
August 12th, 2008, at 12:05 pm #