>
> Sybase sounds interesting. I don't really want to move to Oracle because of
> the syntax differences (I mean, I'm just going by what I see here, and it
> always seems like if someone gives a SQL solution, they almost always have
> to add an Oracle caveat, it seems)
FWIW, I would rate Oracle higher on standard compliance as MS SQL
Server (if you start counting the SQL features they are pretty
close, but MS SQL Server scores big in areas which are often less
important for portability such as the information_schema, while
Oracle does better in datatype and function support). But I
suppose that if you are used to seeing the idiosyncracies of one
database you forget that they are just that, idiosyncracies, and
use that as the measure for all other databases.
> What "flavor" of SQL does MySQL use?
Subset of SQL-92 Core, additions using a very 'different' syntax,
many "gotcha's": http://sql-info.de/mysql/gotchas.html
> I think it's now a toss-up kinda, between the two, but it seems like MySQL
> is going to be the most "common" in that it seems like every host on earth
> supports it.
We don't :) Why would we want to offer MySQL when we can offer
PostgreSQL?
Jochem
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
