Re: Determine SQL or System naming?

[Vernon Hamberg <vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Saying "*SYS is far, far away" - that extension does not make the entire 
product "far, far away" from the standards - we need a list of how every 
RDBMS departs from the standards to have a meaningful conversation - 
your statement has to be an example of one of the logically fallacious 
kinds of statements, just as your deflection on the matter of RLA is a 
fallacious argument. And your statement about values into - it does not 
matter what the implementation is - if the relational interface were 
built on top of a hierarchical lower level, who cares? SQL Server's 
internal structure differs considerably from DB2 on IBM i, but both 
present a relational language to work with the data - standards are 
primarily about how SQL works at a high level, not about the low-level 
implementation.

On 3/17/2020 1:47 AM, D*B wrote:
> @values into: this came later on and is using sysibm.sysdummy1 under 
> the cover. (database monitor showed this)
>
> @SQL dialects: all implementations are variants of ANSI SQL. My 
> recommendation is: go as close to the standard as possible - and 
> naming *SYS is far, far away.
>
> @RLA: using RLA, you can't use newer and very important features 
> (e.g.: instead triggers).
>
> Dieter