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?

                              Christian Cage

                              How to properly install USB display driver for Fresco Logic FL2000DX on Ubuntu?