Re: [NOW ANSWER Aaron's QUESTION CELKO]

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

Ah, yes that makes sense. For each feature to define, I can imagine the battle over which vendor's syntax to pick. <<

No. Phil Shaw of IBM put their SQL spec into the old ANSI X3H2 as the
basis for the SQL Standard. It was VERY brave in those days, with not
much IP law in place. IBM was the "good guys" much to the surprise of
my generation.

.. they all tried to get their proprietary syntax implemented. I think this was the main reason why there was a 7 year gap between SQL92 and SQL:1999. <<

No. the ANSI/ISO cycle is five years anyway. The main cause was what
I call "The War of the Three Kingdoms" -- IBM, HP and Oracle all had
OO crap they wanted to add to SQL; this lead to ma "memo of
concern" (standard speak for "stop this crap!!!") from the OO
Standards people, etc.This is when I left ANSI X3H2 and the fight
was ... complicated

I was under the impression that the whole OO stuff took a long time to iron out <<

Yes. The base document lost over 1000 pages of OO crap. Total
nightmare because of a fad that said EVERYTHING had to be OO.

Many years ago, the INCITS H2 Database Standards Committee(nee ANSI
X3H2 Database Standards Committee) had a meeting in Rapid City, South
Dakota. We had Mount Rushmore and Bjarne Stroustrup as special
attractions. Mr. Stroustrup did his slide show (on overhead
transparent slides!) about Bell Labs inventing C++ and OO programming
for us and we got to ask questions.

One of the questions was how we should put OO stuff into SQL. His
answer was that Bells Labs (the smartest people on Earth at the time),
with all their talent, had tried four different approaches to this
problem and came the conclusion that you should not do it. OO was
great for programming but deadly for data.

I have watched people try to force OO models into SQL and it falls
apart in about a year. Every typo becomes a new attribute or class,
queries that would have been so easy in a relational model are now
multi-table monster outer joins, redundancy grows at an exponential
rates, constraints are virtually impossible to write so you can kiss
data integrity goodbye, etc.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS SQL Server - a plethora of limitations...
    ... > Most of your objections are that MS-SQL is not Oracle. ... according to the standards. ... > There is no such syntax or concept in Standard SQL. ... Partitioning shouldn't be done automatically by the DB, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)
  • Re: How do i write Set based queries and avoid a cursor?
    ... certain coding standards, which also may predate certain ANSI/ISO ... since this varies so greatly from database to database, ... Why must everyone write in "Standard SQL"? ... can't help you because your code sucks. ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Re: How do i write Set based queries and avoid a cursor?
    ... I am sure CELKO is an expert but 95% of us ... certain coding standards, which also may predate certain ANSI/ISO ... since this varies so greatly from database to database, ... Why must everyone write in "Standard SQL"? ...
    (comp.databases.ms-sqlserver)
  • Need your expertise - Sharepoint Technical Specialist
    ... MicroSoft Sharepoint 2003 skills are: Nice Rapid SQL, ... Plan, develop, and execute component tests software configuration tasks ... resolve issues standards May share some architect Ensure quality ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.portalserver)
  • Re: Ping to Jo Celko
    ... professionals do work for everyone ... My 8-th book is on IT and other Standards! ... still remember the reaction in ANSI X3H2 when Phil Shaw brought in ... allowed to submit items DIRECTLY to ISO now. ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming)