SanDroid (12/27/2012)
Hugo Kornelis (12/21/2012)
My point is also not that I want the current implementation of UNIQUE removed from the product.
My point is that IF a feature is implemented that has the same name as a feature in the ANSI standard, then it should behave exactly as described in that standard. If a vendor chooses to offer additional options as well - fine, but use optional keywords for them, and make sure that the defaults are for ANSI behaviour.[/quote-0]
Hugo you are better than this.
MS SQL Server is an ACID compliant Transactional RDMS system that Logs all DML.
It also supports ANSI SQL as a secondary language. :w00t:
So your arguments suggesting we should limit our Choices and options as DBA's and Developers when using MS SQL server so it will support some language standard that is secondary to T-SQL and ACID support seem very contrary and argumentative. 😎
ANSI is a standardisation institute. ANSI has published several standards, over the years, for relational databases. Those standards include descriptions of language features. Companies that create a relational database can choose to adhere to the standard, either fully or partially, or not to adhere to it at all. As far as I know, there are no companies with 100% ANSI compliance, but most major players in the RDBMS market comply with a large part of the ANSI standard.
SQL Server supports only one language: T-SQL. That language complies for a good part with the ANSI standard. It doesn't implement all ANSI features, and it implements lots of features that are not in the ANSI standard.
I don't suggest limiting choices and options. I do think that it is needlessly confusing that SQL Server implements one specific feature that has the same name as an ANSI standard feature, but a different implementation.