SQL ANSI standard

[cleberzumba]

I wonder if the SQL that is not in the ANSI standard is wrong.

[Trevisolli]

Good morning, brother, beleza?

In my conception, not that SQL is wrong that is not in the ANSI standard.

You can for example, put an Oracle rownum on your SQL or, a SQL Server limit.

What happens is as follows:

If you develop a commercial application, you want to sell to N clients in any database, you will have problems.

For example, create SQL with rownum and have to deploy on a SQL-Server, Firebird etc. basis.

Well, there is my opinion ... This topic is interesting, who can add more information.

[Trevisolli]

To complement:


database systems that use SQL:

- Apache Derby
- Caché
- DB2
Inters
- InterBase
- MySQL
Oracle
- PostgreSQL
- Microsoft SQL Server
- SQLite
- Sybase
- Firebird
- HSQLDB HSQLDB, database Made in Java
- PointBase PointBase, relational database done in Java

Source: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#Exemplo

[cleberzumba]

The InterBase Bank only accepts SQL standard ANSI ... or not?

[Trevisolli]

Brother,

I can not tell you for sure, because I do not know the peculiarities of InterBase / Firebird.

You can find more details in:
http://www.firebase.com.br/fb/
If someone here in the forum knows, tb, just post.

[ARF]

Due to the numerous particularities of each bank, it is very difficult to develop an independent bank application.

There will always be specific routines, non-existent or different functions that will force you to use other means to achieve the same result.

Whenever possible it is good to use the most accepted pattern by different banks in the ANSI case.

Whatever you give to generalize, OK.

[cleberzumba]

I agree with you but that the not ANSI fad is not wrong this is true ... agree?

[ARF]

Wrong, no, different.