Jay Pipes wrote:
Yes, things outside the standard were indeed considered (although Peter
Gulutzan would be the expert voice on this) and AFAIK, the parts of the
SQL standard that were reasonable were used. But...subqueries were a
feature that was supported on 100% of other RDBMS and had practical
uses. CLOB? It's a throwback to Oracle. What I am saying is that each
piece of the parsed syntax should be looked at with new eyes, and not
just "let's go with the standard". If the standard is good and
reasonable for the audience we are targeting, cool. If not, I'm saying,
don't worry too much about the standard. That's all.
CLOB vs. TEXT is just a name issue, so it is not at all a big deal.
Sticking to the standard means very little to me, so -1 on this. If the
standard is reasonable and pertains to modern systems, sure, fine by me,
but I am not opposed to breaking standards, especially when they were
made by vendors 20 or more years ago and then bolted onto to fit needs.
Standards are good for portability, but in this day and age, one has to
wonder what, realistically, is the likelihood of writing portable
applications to run on multiple RDBMS. Standard and portable SQL is a
complete myth IMHO, and applications which try to be portable suffer
from poor performance by aiming at lowest common denominators.
Drizzle isn't really aimed at being the database for VARs or OEMs that
want a standards-compliant RDBMS on which to write some enterprise
application. Instead, it aims to tackle the specific problems of the
web and cloud environments.
Standards are not only good for portability. They also mean that a
developer can move from one database to another without having to learn
a completely new semantics.
Isn't that what portability is?
You were arguing about portable applications. My argument was that even
though you are targetting a single database, it is nice if you do not
have to learn a new syntax/semantics when picking up a new database for
your next project. Slight difference :)
Of course that does not happen in the real
world, but that is because of the vendors, not the standard.
And it's the very same vendors which wrote the standard.
Well I think that outer join is an exception. Both Oracle and Sybase had
outer join implementations before the standard was defined, but a
different syntax was actually selected for SQL-92.
Roy
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
