Is Microsoft SQL Server 2016 fully ANSI SQL-92 compliant?
Clash 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?
sql-server sql-server-2016 sql-standard
add a comment |Â
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?
sql-server sql-server-2016 sql-standard
add a comment |Â
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?
sql-server sql-server-2016 sql-standard
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
sql-server sql-server-2016 sql-standard
asked Aug 13 at 10:18
Sebastian Widz
1263
1263
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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
andTIME
literalsDOMAINS
<set column default clause>
not there, but instead this thing<position expression>
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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
add a comment |Â
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
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
edited Aug 13 at 15:22
community wiki
3 revs, 3 users 75%
hot2use
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
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
andTIME
literalsDOMAINS
<set column default clause>
not there, but instead this thing<position expression>
add a comment |Â
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
andTIME
literalsDOMAINS
<set column default clause>
not there, but instead this thing<position expression>
add a comment |Â
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
andTIME
literalsDOMAINS
<set column default clause>
not there, but instead this thing<position expression>
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
andTIME
literalsDOMAINS
<set column default clause>
not there, but instead this thing<position expression>
edited Aug 17 at 17:27
answered Aug 17 at 0:44
Evan Carroll
28.7k856185
28.7k856185
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password