Re: Changing database to SQL from DDS

["M. Lazarus" <mlazarus@xxxxxxxx>]

Bruce,

At 1/7/03 07:36 PM, you wrote:
> > Much to IBM fault, in recent releases, they have enhanced SQL databases,
> > but not DDS.  A prime example of this is EVIs (encoded vector indexes).
>
> Fault? They said they would do it. They did it. Foreign key constraints...
> the very thing that makes the database reverse engineering operations
> possible, are not possible in DDS itself. You must use commands or SQL. And,
> again, the tools shine here. Tie two files together and the foreign key
> constraints are applied. Period.
 IBM telling us that they'll do something doesn't make it a good 
decision.  So, yes, it *is* IBM's fault.


> > Regardless, unless you are doing something that can only be achieved in
> > SQL, the final databases you get are comparable.
>
> Comparable is an understatement. Outside of a few flag bits that indicate
> the creation "source", and functionality that appears only in SQL, the
> implementations are virtually identical.
 That only "proves" how (relatively) easy it would be to add the 
functionality to DDS.  And on the outside chance that there's some function 
that would not be practical syntactically to add to DDS, how 
difficult  would it be do add embedded SQL to DDS??

 Some food for thought.

 -mark