SQL != SQL...
-
phil.o wrote:
When you stop using both dbms at the same time?
Well, that may be a solution(if he wants stop getting hurt ) ;)
phil.o wrote:
Or when you stop using them totally?
Don't tell me that you want him to us MS access :sigh:
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
When does the hurting stop? :((
When you stop using both dbms at the same time? Or when you stop using them totally? :)
I never finish anyth
Maybe when I retire?
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
When does the hurting stop
When you stop doing presentation logics in the database. I also agree with Phil, why do you need to support more than one database?
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Our company uses Oracle and SQL Server, both from C#. SQL Server support isn't really a requirement (now), but I was pretty sure it would work as it's SQL in it's simplest form (although apparently there is no 'simple' form of SQL)... Anyway, screw SQL Server support.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
If the minor differences between databases already make you cry, then please stay away from anything that has to do with browsers.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.CDP1802 wrote:
stay away from anything that has to do with browsers
As a full-stack web developer that'll be difficult. And yes it makes me cry and gives me nightmares, why can't we all just get along? Sometimes I want to go back to my safe and simple WinForms, now that's good technology :)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
CDP1802 wrote:
stay away from anything that has to do with browsers
As a full-stack web developer that'll be difficult. And yes it makes me cry and gives me nightmares, why can't we all just get along? Sometimes I want to go back to my safe and simple WinForms, now that's good technology :)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Very true, but some people think it just does not feel right if it is not as complicated and convoluted as possible. Browsers, CSS, JavaScript HTMl, throw them all away and build a native client where ever possible. Then you will certainly have a better UI. As for the databases, perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction. Then you can be fairly independent of the actual database that is used. At the price (as someone already noted) that you will do everybody a favor and not do any more presentation layer stuff in the data layer.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Our company uses Oracle and SQL Server, both from C#. SQL Server support isn't really a requirement (now), but I was pretty sure it would work as it's SQL in it's simplest form (although apparently there is no 'simple' form of SQL)... Anyway, screw SQL Server support.
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
It'll get even funnier when you realize that even when the SQL is completely compatible, the results may not be. For example: Oracle doesn't have an empty string.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
So I've been doing Oracle development, coming from SQL Server. Simple string concatenation, which is + everywhere, is || in Oracle. A little research and || seems to be the ANSI standard, which makes sense as 2 || 'A' is now unambiguous '2A' (and not a conversion error). But now I want to write a simple SELECT statement which would work in both Oracle and SQL Server. Oracle doesn't support + and SQL Server doesn't support ||, however both support CONCAT. Seems too easy for something that's uneasy already, and indeed it is... SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B') FROM TABLE works in Oracle and SQL Server. SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B', 'C') FROM TABLE works only in SQL Server... Seems like the only thing that works in both databases is CONCAT('A', CONCAT('B', 'C')). And that seems like the only reasonable solution is to write two different queries, one for Oracle and one for SQL Server because it's just too friggin difficult to implement a standard FRIGGIN STRING CONCATENATION!!! X| When does the hurting stop? :((
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
So what you are saying is T-SQL <> PL/SQL? :)
Mongo: Mongo only pawn... in game of life.
-
Very true, but some people think it just does not feel right if it is not as complicated and convoluted as possible. Browsers, CSS, JavaScript HTMl, throw them all away and build a native client where ever possible. Then you will certainly have a better UI. As for the databases, perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction. Then you can be fairly independent of the actual database that is used. At the price (as someone already noted) that you will do everybody a favor and not do any more presentation layer stuff in the data layer.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.CDP1802 wrote:
perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction
This is the 'dynamic everything should be possible' kind of code. In my experience ORM's don't handle that very well... We've tried some solutions, but ultimately decided to build our own solution, which is what I'm now doing :laugh:
CDP1802 wrote:
you will do everybody a favor and not do any more presentation layer stuff in the data layer
I'm not ;)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
It'll get even funnier when you realize that even when the SQL is completely compatible, the results may not be. For example: Oracle doesn't have an empty string.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
For example: Oracle doesn't have an empty string.
Or a bit/bool data type...
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
It'll get even funnier
I'm not laughing ;p
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
CDP1802 wrote:
perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction
This is the 'dynamic everything should be possible' kind of code. In my experience ORM's don't handle that very well... We've tried some solutions, but ultimately decided to build our own solution, which is what I'm now doing :laugh:
CDP1802 wrote:
you will do everybody a favor and not do any more presentation layer stuff in the data layer
I'm not ;)
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
This is the 'dynamic everything should be possible' kind of code.
Good luck. Everybody and his dog must give it a try, I guess.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
Works in Oracle
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
Maybe when I retire?
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
I don't think so. At that time, extensive usage of both systems during your carreer will have caused severe brain damages, displacing the moral pain to a physical, unsustainable pain. Better stick to Excel as early as possible ;P
I never finish anyth
-
Very true, but some people think it just does not feel right if it is not as complicated and convoluted as possible. Browsers, CSS, JavaScript HTMl, throw them all away and build a native client where ever possible. Then you will certainly have a better UI. As for the databases, perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction. Then you can be fairly independent of the actual database that is used. At the price (as someone already noted) that you will do everybody a favor and not do any more presentation layer stuff in the data layer.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns.CDP1802 wrote:
perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction
Works fine for CRUD, but...
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
So I've been doing Oracle development, coming from SQL Server. Simple string concatenation, which is + everywhere, is || in Oracle. A little research and || seems to be the ANSI standard, which makes sense as 2 || 'A' is now unambiguous '2A' (and not a conversion error). But now I want to write a simple SELECT statement which would work in both Oracle and SQL Server. Oracle doesn't support + and SQL Server doesn't support ||, however both support CONCAT. Seems too easy for something that's uneasy already, and indeed it is... SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B') FROM TABLE works in Oracle and SQL Server. SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B', 'C') FROM TABLE works only in SQL Server... Seems like the only thing that works in both databases is CONCAT('A', CONCAT('B', 'C')). And that seems like the only reasonable solution is to write two different queries, one for Oracle and one for SQL Server because it's just too friggin difficult to implement a standard FRIGGIN STRING CONCATENATION!!! X| When does the hurting stop? :((
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
That's why I use a SQL builder. SQL - it's not Structured, it's not just Query, and it's not a Language. How the f*** did it get that acronym? Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
-
So I've been doing Oracle development, coming from SQL Server. Simple string concatenation, which is + everywhere, is || in Oracle. A little research and || seems to be the ANSI standard, which makes sense as 2 || 'A' is now unambiguous '2A' (and not a conversion error). But now I want to write a simple SELECT statement which would work in both Oracle and SQL Server. Oracle doesn't support + and SQL Server doesn't support ||, however both support CONCAT. Seems too easy for something that's uneasy already, and indeed it is... SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B') FROM TABLE works in Oracle and SQL Server. SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B', 'C') FROM TABLE works only in SQL Server... Seems like the only thing that works in both databases is CONCAT('A', CONCAT('B', 'C')). And that seems like the only reasonable solution is to write two different queries, one for Oracle and one for SQL Server because it's just too friggin difficult to implement a standard FRIGGIN STRING CONCATENATION!!! X| When does the hurting stop? :((
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
So I've been doing Oracle development, coming from SQL Server. Simple string concatenation, which is + everywhere, is || in Oracle. A little research and || seems to be the ANSI standard, which makes sense as 2 || 'A' is now unambiguous '2A' (and not a conversion error). But now I want to write a simple SELECT statement which would work in both Oracle and SQL Server. Oracle doesn't support + and SQL Server doesn't support ||, however both support CONCAT. Seems too easy for something that's uneasy already, and indeed it is... SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B') FROM TABLE works in Oracle and SQL Server. SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B', 'C') FROM TABLE works only in SQL Server... Seems like the only thing that works in both databases is CONCAT('A', CONCAT('B', 'C')). And that seems like the only reasonable solution is to write two different queries, one for Oracle and one for SQL Server because it's just too friggin difficult to implement a standard FRIGGIN STRING CONCATENATION!!! X| When does the hurting stop? :((
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
-
That's why I use a SQL builder. SQL - it's not Structured, it's not just Query, and it's not a Language. How the f*** did it get that acronym? Marc
Imperative to Functional Programming Succinctly Contributors Wanted for Higher Order Programming Project!
It is indeed just Query, the rest is DDL[^] and DML[^] The other two I'll pin down as opinions. :)
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
-
CDP1802 wrote:
perhaps you should use a ORM as abstraction
Works fine for CRUD, but...
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Yes, and most things where CRUD does not work are the direct road to hell. I have seen many failed 'dynamic' SQL thingies and every time the 'creators' finally noticed that they could not swim when they were in the middle of the ocean. I'm patching up another interesting creation right now. Each table in the database has more triggers than an average piece of sh.t . Not just 'normal' triggers, if there is such a thing. Those triggers contain real application logic and also try to do everything at once, triggering even more triggers. The whole avalanche is stopped by setting special columns in the data rows. Now, I need to change a value in a primary key of one row, which usually means deleting and then inserting the row with its new key. If I do that, the wrong triggers will start triggering and everything goes to hell (GOTO is very bad). Our geniuses did an update on the data row with the new key and then the (hopefully) right triggers will take over. The problem is that I really use an ORM and updating on a new primary key value will not cause an error, but also update nothing. There hopefully is a special place in hell reserved for those people.
The language is JavaScript. that of Mordor, which I will not utter here
This is Javascript. If you put big wheels and a racing stripe on a golf cart, it's still a fucking golf cart.
"I don't know, extraterrestrial?" "You mean like from space?" "No, from Canada." If software development were a circus, we would all be the clowns. -
So I've been doing Oracle development, coming from SQL Server. Simple string concatenation, which is + everywhere, is || in Oracle. A little research and || seems to be the ANSI standard, which makes sense as 2 || 'A' is now unambiguous '2A' (and not a conversion error). But now I want to write a simple SELECT statement which would work in both Oracle and SQL Server. Oracle doesn't support + and SQL Server doesn't support ||, however both support CONCAT. Seems too easy for something that's uneasy already, and indeed it is... SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B') FROM TABLE works in Oracle and SQL Server. SELECT CONCAT('A', 'B', 'C') FROM TABLE works only in SQL Server... Seems like the only thing that works in both databases is CONCAT('A', CONCAT('B', 'C')). And that seems like the only reasonable solution is to write two different queries, one for Oracle and one for SQL Server because it's just too friggin difficult to implement a standard FRIGGIN STRING CONCATENATION!!! X| When does the hurting stop? :((
Visit my blog at Sander's bits - Writing the code you need. Or read my articles at my CodeProject profile.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. — Edsger W. Dijkstra
Regards, Sander
Sander Rossel wrote:
When does the hurting stop?
Generally, the hurt lessens with each paycheck. ;) I use many different database systems. I also have to deal with the various ways of wrapping table and column names in the various databases:
[],"",``, etc. And parameter prefices:@,:. But it's Caché with is lack of operator precedence that wins the prize as worst (yes, worse than Access and Excel). :mad: Anyway... now and again I work on a technique to deal with these issues. My current technique looks a bit like this:internal enum SQL
{
[System.ComponentModel.DescriptionAttribute("Get a User record by Name")]
[PIEBALD.Attribute.SqlServerStatementAttribute
(
@"
SELECT [blah] , [blah] , [blah] FROM [UserTable] WHERE [Name]=@Param0
"
,
1 // (The number of parameters)
)]
[PIEBALD.Attribute.OracleStatementAttribute
(
@"
SELECT ""blah"" , ""blah"" , ""blah"" FROM ""UserTable"" WHERE ""Name""=:Param0
"
,
1
)]
[PIEBALD.Attribute.MySqlStatementAttribute
(
@"
SELECT `blah` , `blah` , `blah` FROM `UserTable` WHERE `Name`=@Param0
"
,
1
)]
GetUserByName// Other members as required
}This has the added benefit that it keeps all the various versions of the SQL together rather than having separate files or classes for each type of database and never knowing whether or not you are keeping them maintained properly. Then in the application, I need refer only to the enumeration members, and my framework will select the correct version of the SQL for the particular ADO.net provider in use at the moment. (Yes, I might write yet another Data Access article.) Very few applications actually need this, but it's good exercise.
-
I had fun with SQL SUBSTRING the other day...WTE is it 1 based? :laugh:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Because
CHARINDEXis? :-D
