TravisDBA (5/31/2012)
Sorry about that. I was trying to make the point that "generic" database designs aren't really possible due to the nature of the underlying infrastructure. Clearly failed.
I'm a little confused too Grant . Who really uses "generic' database designs nowadays anyway? Particularly, when the underlying database structure is constantly changing in a fast paced environment. At least mine anyway. This seems to me like something that is already very apparent to most DBA's IMHO anyway. So, Oracle and SQL Server are fundamentally different, Uhhhhh... yes, they are....no kidding! I'm with Chris, I'm not sure what point the message was trying to convey, that we didn't already know.:-D
The message may have been unclear, again apologies, but you're wrong that this is common knowledge. Tons and tons of developers and plenty of DBAs still believe in not hooking yourself to a single vendor. I interviewed someone just a little over a year ago who lectured me on my technical questions because they were too "Microsoft & SQL Server specific." His argument was that only lowest common denominator SQL should be used so that it's easier to port between database systems. People really do still believe this.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning