In <[🔎] h6lhuk$eke$1@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: >Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> In <[🔎] h6l9af$4pe$1@ger.gmane.org>, Emanoil Kotsev wrote: >>>Yeah, somehow SQL does not seem to be really "S"tandard :-) >> >> The "S" in SQL stands/stood for "Structured". [...] >> >> In short, most SQL you will find is not strictly-conforming, just like >> most shell scripts and C/C++ programs. > >hehe, I was thinking (because reading about standardization of SQL) it >stands for standard. >Thanks for pointing out. > >I've been playing with import/export sqlite - mysql/oracle. >Exporting only simple sql structure works (no indices and funktions). Functions are a real issue. I believe there's some allowances for them in the standard, but the function body usually ends up being implementation specific. Plain indexes should be able to be pulled over fairly easily, though. Unless you are using some odd index type (e.g.: Oracle's bit-mask index type), it should have come over easily enough. Also, some *SQL products do not implement the whole of the standard or an older version[1], which causes more problems for portability of SQL code. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/ [1] I think the most recent is SQL 2003.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.