Subject | Re: [Firebird-Architect] Counter proposal to Temporary tables |
---|---|
Author | Martijn Tonies |
Post date | 2004-12-02T09:07:37Z |
Hi Ann,
the sponsors e-mail, I can see he seems to want something
as "declared local temp tables".
is different. In many aspects. But we also had quite a list of engines
that used the syntax we proposed.
this is not at all what I read from your post.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com
> >No-one used COALESCE before it existed.Ah well, you know what I mean ;-)
>
> OK, but in that case we implemented something as
> described in the standard and it solves a real
> problem.
>
> >No-one used UDFs before they existed.
>
> Wouldn't know. They've always existed.
> >No-one used Stored Procedures before they existed.That's a wholly different thing to be considered. From re-reading
>
> Actually, people used non-updateable views with triggers
> as if they were stored procedures.
>
> >They all could be "worked around". How is this an argument
> >against functionality that with which we could "tick of" another
> >"SQL standard" item?
>
> The short answer is that the feature, temporary tables as
> defined by the SQL standard, doesn't meet the needs of the
> sponsor.
the sponsors e-mail, I can see he seems to want something
as "declared local temp tables".
> >How is this an argument against easier transaction from otherYes, "transition". Guess which word I type most ;-) ... MS SQL
> >engines?
>
> Transaction? Transition? It won't be easier transition from
> MSSQL because their implementation is grossly non-standard.
> Most requests for temporary tables come from MSSQL users.
is different. In many aspects. But we also had quite a list of engines
that used the syntax we proposed.
> >Not having to run the clean-up procedure yourself is exactlyI agree we should do "the right thing". But as explained earlier,
> >one of the reasons why temp-tables are, well, not "needed",
> >but surely very convinient.
>
> A problem is that the SQL-03 standard makes temporary tables
> nearly incompatible with the <as subquery> clause in table
> definitions. Adding temporary tables won't solve the migration
> from MSSQL problems. Adding a non-standard temporary table
> implementation will make future standards a choice between
> doing the right thing - maintaining backward compatibility
> and doing the right thing - and doing the right thing -
> following the standard.
this is not at all what I read from your post.
With regards,
Martijn Tonies
Database Workbench - developer tool for InterBase, Firebird, MySQL & MS SQL
Server.
Upscene Productions
http://www.upscene.com