|
|
Posted by Nasir on 05/15/06 18:13
Thank you all for your commencts on this - I didn't know it is so common and
relatively painful issue. Certainly, I wasn't expecting it, that ther eis no
easy solution to this.
My opinion is that table and column name should be insensitive by pretty
much 80/20 or yet better 99/1 rule (it's a new one:-), the 1 only when we
are looking for readability of the object or column name. To the contrary,
we always need to read the data (actual information) from these tables and
columns, so data got to be sensitive. I don't think people enjoy seeing
there names in funny cases like mIKe vs Mike, let alone that e.e...example
which I'm not aware of.
More importatntly, if it is such a pain then why not provide this as an
option in collation; if SQL server can give you so many other options, this
one can also be included - specially when SQL server is not the leader in DB
category.
I think adopting a standard is good - so I'll be forced to use
SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS to keep all sensitive across the board to avoid
confusions.
chao,
Nasir
"Alexander Kuznetsov" <AK_TIREDOFSPAM@hotmail.COM> wrote in message
news:1147491491.272900.168260@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> With an ORDER BY the result > set is identical.
>
> Can you post versions of SQL Server and Oracle and operating systems
> for which they are identical?
>
> In fact it is a well known little obstacle in migrations between
> Oracle and SQL Server. More to the point, immediately before posting I
> ran the script and cut and pasted my results. Repeat, the results as
> harvested from 2 live servers several hours ago are different:
>
> SELECT * FROM T1 order by c1;
>
> SQL Server:
>
> c1
> ----------
> A_A
> AAA
>
> (2 row(s) affected)
>
> drop table t1;
>
> The same script in Oracle running on UNIX (HP-UX) returns rows in a
> different
> order:
>
> C1
> ----------
> AAA
> A_A
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|