Is Microsoft SQL Server 2016 fully ANSI SQL-92 compliant?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
5
down vote

favorite












I am trying to find a compliance confirmation for MS SQL 2016 - if it is fully compliant with ANSI SQL-92 starndard.



I found this article on Microsoft Docs which states it is not, but it refers to ODBC driver and Microsoft Jet engine - not sure if this is exactly the same thing, shouldn't it also relate to T-SQL?










share|improve this question



























    up vote
    5
    down vote

    favorite












    I am trying to find a compliance confirmation for MS SQL 2016 - if it is fully compliant with ANSI SQL-92 starndard.



    I found this article on Microsoft Docs which states it is not, but it refers to ODBC driver and Microsoft Jet engine - not sure if this is exactly the same thing, shouldn't it also relate to T-SQL?










    share|improve this question























      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      5
      down vote

      favorite











      I am trying to find a compliance confirmation for MS SQL 2016 - if it is fully compliant with ANSI SQL-92 starndard.



      I found this article on Microsoft Docs which states it is not, but it refers to ODBC driver and Microsoft Jet engine - not sure if this is exactly the same thing, shouldn't it also relate to T-SQL?










      share|improve this question













      I am trying to find a compliance confirmation for MS SQL 2016 - if it is fully compliant with ANSI SQL-92 starndard.



      I found this article on Microsoft Docs which states it is not, but it refers to ODBC driver and Microsoft Jet engine - not sure if this is exactly the same thing, shouldn't it also relate to T-SQL?







      sql-server sql-server-2016 sql-standard






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Aug 13 at 10:18









      Sebastian Widz

      1263




      1263




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          12
          down vote



          accepted










          I don't believe that any version of any database platform on earth is fully compliant with any version of the standard. This is probably why you're not finding any claims of 100% compliance...



          You can find some promising starting points over on Stack Overflow in the following Q & A: Database Engines and ANSI SQL Compliance



          Many references linked from there are not maintained because database platforms are evolving all the time and this would be many full-time jobs to stay on top of it all. Basically:



          • no database platform is 100% compliant, but several come close

          • platforms have proprietary additions on top of the standard, so your definition of "fully compliant" may vary from someone else's





          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            No (with examples)



            From like the very first page,




            <concatenation operator> is an operator, ||, that returns the character string made by joining its character string operands in the order given.




            SQL Server uses +.



            And as far as I know that's SQL 86.



            See also



            • INTERVAL types and SQL Server


            • CURRENT_DATE CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_USER

            • hex and bit string literals

            • TABLE

            • CORRESPONDING BY


            • TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE, TIMESTAMP WITH OUT TIME ZONE


            • DATE and TIME literals

            • DOMAINS


            • <set column default clause> not there, but instead this thing

            • <position expression>





            share|improve this answer






















              Your Answer







              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "182"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: false,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214766%2fis-microsoft-sql-server-2016-fully-ansi-sql-92-compliant%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              12
              down vote



              accepted










              I don't believe that any version of any database platform on earth is fully compliant with any version of the standard. This is probably why you're not finding any claims of 100% compliance...



              You can find some promising starting points over on Stack Overflow in the following Q & A: Database Engines and ANSI SQL Compliance



              Many references linked from there are not maintained because database platforms are evolving all the time and this would be many full-time jobs to stay on top of it all. Basically:



              • no database platform is 100% compliant, but several come close

              • platforms have proprietary additions on top of the standard, so your definition of "fully compliant" may vary from someone else's





              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                12
                down vote



                accepted










                I don't believe that any version of any database platform on earth is fully compliant with any version of the standard. This is probably why you're not finding any claims of 100% compliance...



                You can find some promising starting points over on Stack Overflow in the following Q & A: Database Engines and ANSI SQL Compliance



                Many references linked from there are not maintained because database platforms are evolving all the time and this would be many full-time jobs to stay on top of it all. Basically:



                • no database platform is 100% compliant, but several come close

                • platforms have proprietary additions on top of the standard, so your definition of "fully compliant" may vary from someone else's





                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  12
                  down vote



                  accepted







                  up vote
                  12
                  down vote



                  accepted






                  I don't believe that any version of any database platform on earth is fully compliant with any version of the standard. This is probably why you're not finding any claims of 100% compliance...



                  You can find some promising starting points over on Stack Overflow in the following Q & A: Database Engines and ANSI SQL Compliance



                  Many references linked from there are not maintained because database platforms are evolving all the time and this would be many full-time jobs to stay on top of it all. Basically:



                  • no database platform is 100% compliant, but several come close

                  • platforms have proprietary additions on top of the standard, so your definition of "fully compliant" may vary from someone else's





                  share|improve this answer














                  I don't believe that any version of any database platform on earth is fully compliant with any version of the standard. This is probably why you're not finding any claims of 100% compliance...



                  You can find some promising starting points over on Stack Overflow in the following Q & A: Database Engines and ANSI SQL Compliance



                  Many references linked from there are not maintained because database platforms are evolving all the time and this would be many full-time jobs to stay on top of it all. Basically:



                  • no database platform is 100% compliant, but several come close

                  • platforms have proprietary additions on top of the standard, so your definition of "fully compliant" may vary from someone else's






                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Aug 13 at 15:22


























                  community wiki





                  3 revs, 3 users 75%
                  hot2use























                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      No (with examples)



                      From like the very first page,




                      <concatenation operator> is an operator, ||, that returns the character string made by joining its character string operands in the order given.




                      SQL Server uses +.



                      And as far as I know that's SQL 86.



                      See also



                      • INTERVAL types and SQL Server


                      • CURRENT_DATE CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_USER

                      • hex and bit string literals

                      • TABLE

                      • CORRESPONDING BY


                      • TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE, TIMESTAMP WITH OUT TIME ZONE


                      • DATE and TIME literals

                      • DOMAINS


                      • <set column default clause> not there, but instead this thing

                      • <position expression>





                      share|improve this answer


























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        No (with examples)



                        From like the very first page,




                        <concatenation operator> is an operator, ||, that returns the character string made by joining its character string operands in the order given.




                        SQL Server uses +.



                        And as far as I know that's SQL 86.



                        See also



                        • INTERVAL types and SQL Server


                        • CURRENT_DATE CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_USER

                        • hex and bit string literals

                        • TABLE

                        • CORRESPONDING BY


                        • TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE, TIMESTAMP WITH OUT TIME ZONE


                        • DATE and TIME literals

                        • DOMAINS


                        • <set column default clause> not there, but instead this thing

                        • <position expression>





                        share|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          No (with examples)



                          From like the very first page,




                          <concatenation operator> is an operator, ||, that returns the character string made by joining its character string operands in the order given.




                          SQL Server uses +.



                          And as far as I know that's SQL 86.



                          See also



                          • INTERVAL types and SQL Server


                          • CURRENT_DATE CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_USER

                          • hex and bit string literals

                          • TABLE

                          • CORRESPONDING BY


                          • TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE, TIMESTAMP WITH OUT TIME ZONE


                          • DATE and TIME literals

                          • DOMAINS


                          • <set column default clause> not there, but instead this thing

                          • <position expression>





                          share|improve this answer














                          No (with examples)



                          From like the very first page,




                          <concatenation operator> is an operator, ||, that returns the character string made by joining its character string operands in the order given.




                          SQL Server uses +.



                          And as far as I know that's SQL 86.



                          See also



                          • INTERVAL types and SQL Server


                          • CURRENT_DATE CURRENT_TIME CURRENT_TIMESTAMP CURRENT_USER

                          • hex and bit string literals

                          • TABLE

                          • CORRESPONDING BY


                          • TIMESTAMP WITH TIME ZONE, TIMESTAMP WITH OUT TIME ZONE


                          • DATE and TIME literals

                          • DOMAINS


                          • <set column default clause> not there, but instead this thing

                          • <position expression>






                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited Aug 17 at 17:27

























                          answered Aug 17 at 0:44









                          Evan Carroll

                          28.7k856185




                          28.7k856185



























                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded















































                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f214766%2fis-microsoft-sql-server-2016-fully-ansi-sql-92-compliant%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Popular posts from this blog

                              How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                              Bahrain

                              Postfix configuration issue with fips on centos 7; mailgun relay