SQL
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
"FETCH FIRST"
Isn't that only for cursors? Got a link to documentation?
Naturally, MS messed up again by putting it together with the
ORDER BYclauseWrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Everyone wants you to think "their way" is the best way.
When we all know, my way is the only way.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
When we all know, my way is the only way.
there is always, "the highway".
-
Why, after all these years, is there still no standard for basic features of SQL. For example, the syntax for returning only [n] rows. Top vs Limit[^] This sort of stuff drives me nuts, as it requires a call out to the specific DB interface to properly generate the SQL for specific DB provider. Argh. And if you want to do something more complex, like offsets and limits, this[^] is a fun read illustrating the syntax differences. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Marc Clifton wrote:
Why, after all these years, is there still no standard for basic features of SQL
There is a standard, as others will probably have pointed out. I've been using the ANSI 92 standard for personal projects; it is quite portable between different types of databases.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And if you want to do something more complex
..then I would not ask the DAL to do so.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
Why, after all these years, is there still no standard for basic features of SQL
There is a standard, as others will probably have pointed out. I've been using the ANSI 92 standard for personal projects; it is quite portable between different types of databases.
Marc Clifton wrote:
And if you want to do something more complex
..then I would not ask the DAL to do so.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
I would not ask the DAL to do so
Exactly, that's an application responsibility.
-
And don't forget the
REMOVEclause.Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
That's applicable to the Basic Relational Architecture.
-
That's applicable to the Basic Relational Architecture.
As is the Lookup Table
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
-
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
-
Sad is the day when you don't. :)
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello Any organization is like a tree full of monkeys. The monkeys on top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. The monkeys on the bottom look up and see nothing but assholes.
-
Why, after all these years, is there still no standard for basic features of SQL. For example, the syntax for returning only [n] rows. Top vs Limit[^] This sort of stuff drives me nuts, as it requires a call out to the specific DB interface to properly generate the SQL for specific DB provider. Argh. And if you want to do something more complex, like offsets and limits, this[^] is a fun read illustrating the syntax differences. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming
Speaking as someone who started out in COBOL: If you want a database, write one. The only reasons to use a database written by someone else are: a: If you have to integrate data with another system (in which case, you put your feet up and let them write the database). b: If you use one of the wussy languages that isn't COBOL.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Why, after all these years, is there still no standard for basic features of SQL. For example, the syntax for returning only [n] rows. Top vs Limit[^] This sort of stuff drives me nuts, as it requires a call out to the specific DB interface to properly generate the SQL for specific DB provider. Argh. And if you want to do something more complex, like offsets and limits, this[^] is a fun read illustrating the syntax differences. Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Higher Order Programming