apart from Aqua data studio?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 17:34:16 +0200, Jochem van Dieten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jeff Small wrote:
> >
> > 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]
