Re: Speaking of New Features
- From: Dan Norris <dannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Bellows, Bambi (Comsys)" <bbel5@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:13:25 -0500
That's true, Oracle has extended SQL just like many other vendors. However,
I don't think they've done much to change the basic syntax for statements
like UPDATE and INSERT. They've done plenty to add DB-specific clauses for
things like PARALLEL, but those are additional clauses, not changing the
statement's basic syntax.
Just my $.02. I like the perl-hash-like syntax Chet proposed, but not sure
it'll go too far. Not sure if more people would buy or use Oracle based on
the availability of that enhancement. Such considerations may play a part in
whether it ends up getting coded. Several years ago, I thought the user
groups had a once-a-year enhancement list that members voted on and was sent
to Oracle for consideration. Maybe this one could get added to one of those
lists and sent up via a user group. I'm not sure they still do that, though.
Dan
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Bellows, Bambi (Comsys) <bbel5@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> Oracle’s been into the SQL extensions since well before the 92 standard
> was set in stone, witness DECODE, etc.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
> oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of *Dan Norris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:00 PM
> *To:* chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx
> *Cc:* oracle-l
> *Subject:* Re: Speaking of New Features
>
>
>
> You may be appealing to the wrong people. The SQL 92 standard specifies the
> INSERT statement syntax (page 388 of
> http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt<http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/%7Eshadow/sql/sql1992.txt>).
> However, I suppose it's always possible to create "extensions" to those
> standards too.
>
> Dan
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:37 PM, chet justice <chet.justice@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Any thoughts on the "new" syntax for INSERT statements below?
>
> INSERT INTO my_table
> ( id => seq.nexval,
> create_date => SYSDATE,
> update_date => SYSDATE,
> col1 => 'A',
> col2 => 'SOMETHING',
> col3 => 'SOMETHING',
> col4 => 'SOMETHING',
> col5 => 'SOMETHING',
> col6 => 'SOMETHING',
> col7 => 'SOMETHING',
> col8 => 'SOMETHING',
> col9 => 'SOMETHING',
> col10 => 'SOMETHING',
> col11 => 'SOMETHING',
> col12 => 'SOMETHING',
> col13 => 'SOMETHING',
> col14 => 'SOMETHING' );
>
> Thought of one day while trying to clean up (make human readable) someone
> else's code. I would either get too many values or not enough. After
> copying the INSERT columns and subsequent VALUES clause into an Excel
> spreadsheet to compare them side by side, I thought, hey, what about named
> notation?
>
> Anyway, I created the "Idea" on Oracle Mix
> here<https://mix.oracle.com/ideas/94278-position-insert-syntax>if you are
> inclined to, one way or another, to vote.
>
> chet
>
> --
> chet justice
> www.oraclenerd.com
>
>
>
Other related posts:
