Hi,

My question is if Oracle Standard version is SQL99 Compliant? How about
Oracle Enterprise version, MS SQL Server 2000 Standard Version and MS
SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Version?

Thanks.

Hai-Chu

From:	Alan
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:35:51 -0500

wrote in message
news:1105649729.923664.285650@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> My question is if Oracle Standard version is SQL99 Compliant? How about
> Oracle Enterprise version, MS SQL Server 2000 Standard Version and MS
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Version?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hai-Chu
>

AFAIK there are NO fully SQL compliant RDMSes regardless of the SQL standard
version.

From:	Troels Arvin
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Fri, 14 Jan 2005 09:51:22 +0100

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:35:51 -0500, Alan wrote:

> AFAIK there are NO fully SQL compliant RDMSes regardless of the SQL standard
> version.

MimerSQL claims SQL:1999 compliance; I assume this means Core SQL:1999,
with support for some of the optionals:
http://developer.mimer.com/features/feature_6.htm

--
Greetings from Troels Arvin, Copenhagen, Denmark

From:	--CELKO--
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	14 Jan 2005 06:43:18 -0800

He did not list the good ones like Teradata, Mimer or Ocelot. I just
sorted his list.

From:	DA Morgan
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:59:32 -0800

seapearl1023@ms65.url.com.tw wrote:

> Hi,
>
> My question is if Oracle Standard version is SQL99 Compliant? How about
> Oracle Enterprise version, MS SQL Server 2000 Standard Version and MS
> SQL Server 2000 Enterprise Version?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Hai-Chu

There is truly no such thing as a compliant database. There are three
levels of compliance and all comply at the lowest level which is about
the equivalent to saying you aren't using 3x5 cards. All comply in
varying degrees in at the middle level, and almost none at the top.

The standard may have some meaning to those that formulate it. But to
the various vendors it means two things ... (1) meet enough of the
standard to claim compliance on the box and (2) do whatever you want
thereafter to differentiate yourself from the competition.

The truth from the software developer's perspective is that if everyone
was identical the only thing that would differentiate products is price.
Not one of the vendors wants a price war.
Not one of their customers want 5 different vendors of the same stuff.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

From:	John C. Ring, Jr.
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:36:32 GMT

In article <41e6ef38$1_1@127.0.0.1>, DA Morgan wrote:
>
>There is truly no such thing as a compliant database. There are three
>levels of compliance and all comply at the lowest level which is about
>the equivalent to saying you aren't using 3x5 cards. All comply in
>varying degrees in at the middle level, and almost none at the top.
>
>The standard may have some meaning to those that formulate it. But to
>the various vendors it means two things ... (1) meet enough of the
>standard to claim compliance on the box and (2) do whatever you want
>thereafter to differentiate yourself from the competition.
>
>The truth from the software developer's perspective is that if everyone
>was identical the only thing that would differentiate products is price.

Hmm. Difficult to say, as I'm not a software developer, but rather an IT
person who does deal with databases (and other things). Of course for an IT
person deciding what to purchase for their own organization, there are a *ton*
of other levels a vendor can compete upon other then purchase price.

* Support/maintenence agreement costs.
* Quality of technical support.
* Reliablity of their software.
* Doesn't crash
* Doesn't lose/corrupt data
* Security holes are only infrequently found
* Ability to integrate with existing authentication systems.
* Ease of management.
* Support for multiple operating systems. If not for the server itself, at
least for client systems.
* Performance.

>Not one of the vendors wants a price war.

True. They do not want to reduce their margins.

>Not one of their customers want 5 different vendors of the same stuff.

Does any customer really want databases from five different vendors in any
circumstance?

Or do you mean that if all five systems were compable, then we customers could
actually choose based upon good reasons, such as those I gave above, rather
then because a software package that we'd like to purchase only supports a
database other then one we already purchased? I agree with that.

Boy, wouldn't that be great? Ah well, I can dream.

From:	DA Morgan
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:04:51 -0800

John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:

> In article <41e6ef38$1_1@127.0.0.1>, DA Morgan wrote:
>
>>There is truly no such thing as a compliant database. There are three
>>levels of compliance and all comply at the lowest level which is about
>>the equivalent to saying you aren't using 3x5 cards. All comply in
>>varying degrees in at the middle level, and almost none at the top.
>>
>>The standard may have some meaning to those that formulate it. But to
>>the various vendors it means two things ... (1) meet enough of the
>>standard to claim compliance on the box and (2) do whatever you want
>>thereafter to differentiate yourself from the competition.
>>
>>The truth from the software developer's perspective is that if everyone
>>was identical the only thing that would differentiate products is price.
>
>
> Hmm. Difficult to say, as I'm not a software developer, but rather an IT
> person who does deal with databases (and other things). Of course for an IT
> person deciding what to purchase for their own organization, there are a *ton*
> of other levels a vendor can compete upon other then purchase price.
>
> * Support/maintenence agreement costs.
> * Quality of technical support.
> * Reliablity of their software.
> * Doesn't crash
> * Doesn't lose/corrupt data
> * Security holes are only infrequently found
> * Ability to integrate with existing authentication systems.
> * Ease of management.
> * Support for multiple operating systems. If not for the server itself, at
> least for client systems.
> * Performance.
>
>
>>Not one of the vendors wants a price war.
>
>
> True. They do not want to reduce their margins.
>
>
>>Not one of their customers want 5 different vendors of the same stuff.
>
>
> Does any customer really want databases from five different vendors in any
> circumstance?
>
> Or do you mean that if all five systems were compable, then we customers could
> actually choose based upon good reasons, such as those I gave above, rather
> then because a software package that we'd like to purchase only supports a
> database other then one we already purchased? I agree with that.
>
> Boy, wouldn't that be great? Ah well, I can dream.

You pretty much got my point. Those creating the database applications
for sale have no incentive to commoditize their product. The minute one
of their CEOs buys into that idea the Board of Directors will show that
CEO to the door.

From my standpoint as a buyer of RDBMS products I have far more need for
a vigorous competitive marketplace than I do a commoditized market. Is
M/S Word really better than WordPerfect? Was Excel really better than
Lotus 123? Is Internet Exploiter any better than Netscape? Everyone
likes to talk about the one or two advantages to commoditization such
as inter-operability ... but in reality it isn't worth 1/10th as much as
the benefits derived from our current market.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From:	--CELKO--
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	13 Jan 2005 20:13:41 -0800

Since Clinton destroyed the FIPS-127 Conformance Test suite there is no
standard way to measure this. However, you can get a copy of "SQL-99
Complete Really" and visit the Mimer website for a free syntax
validator.

Oracle is the worst, DB2 the best and SQL Server somewhere in between,
with major steps forward in Yukon.

From:	DA Morgan
Subject:	Re: SQL99 Compliant databases
Date:	Thu, 13 Jan 2005 22:26:40 -0800

--CELKO-- wrote:

> Since Clinton destroyed the FIPS-127 Conformance Test suite there is no
> standard way to measure this. However, you can get a copy of "SQL-99
> Complete Really" and visit the Mimer website for a free syntax
> validator.
>
> Oracle is the worst, DB2 the best and SQL Server somewhere in between,
> with major steps forward in Yukon.

DB2 closer than Teradata?

--
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan@x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)