There's a great paper here
http://www.tdan.com/view-articles/4923/ that
speaks to SQL compliance. Michael Gorman reported in 2001 that the
federal government and NIST dismantling of its data management standards
program basically removed the enforcement of any standard. That left
only the database vendors to test compliance with any standards after
that point. Before that, no branch of the federal government could
purchase a database package unless it had proven conformance with the
standards.
Standards have continued to be written. All of IBM's DB2 packages
including DB2 i conform to at least SQL99. SQL2003 adds some java
functionality and SQL XML features.
Few vendors have bothered to implement all of SQL99. Fewer yet are
embracing SQL2003.
This leaves intersting variations in the languages that are costly when
converting from one engine to another. For instance, MySQL has no
SYSDUMMY1 table (unless you create it). Instead, MySQL simply does away
with the requirement for a FROM clause in a select statement. SELECT
now(); is the MySQL version of DB2's SELECT CURRENT DATE FROM SYSDUMMY1;
I've found only a few bits of SQL that don't work the same on ALL the
DB2 flavors.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dave Odom
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 1:25 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: DDL Discussion continued
Jon,
Don't lump DB2/400 with the rest of the IBM DB2s as DB2/400 is an
anomaly. And DB2/400 (in this use I'm clumping it in with the OS as
folks say they are one) is an anomaly with any other OS or world-class
RDBMS. The high minded argument of DB2/400 being the most ANSI
compliant and even the most reliable means little in the rest of the
RDBMS world. What they want and have is a set of RDBMs that have the
same basic architecture/fundamental functionality albeit with propriety
extensions. And they can find A LOT of workers trained to work on those
platforms; easily and at less expensive. Rather than beating the same
drum about being the most ANSI complient, I'd work on a sermon to the
rest of the RDBMS/IT world that will convince them to move back to the i
platform. Right now they are moving the other way as they see no
compelling reason to stay with an anomaly. One of my arguments is, if
the i WERE more like the main stream, it just might be more interesting
and more!
considered in the marketplace. BTW, it's those folks you need to make
your sermons to, not me. Here the preaching is within the same church
and lost on who you need to convert/convince.
Don't think IBM is going to help much. All indications are they are
planning on helping most i shops to AIX, perhaps Windoz with their
standard DB2s and let the anomaly die. I wish it were not so, but
reality has to be faced and a game plan made to change perceptions, at
the market level (IBM will follow) or resign to reality.
Dave
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing
list To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe,
unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
