Re: RDBMS comparison tool

On 30/12/2012 04:19, Darren Duncan wrote:
> Yes, that is useful.
>
> I think you should add a column such that your leftmost column is some 
> canonical type name you made for the report, and have the SQL standard 
> name(s) in a separate column like the ODBC standard names are.
>
> This works best when no one list is a superset of the others, which is 
> surely the case, then you don't have say the confusion about which 
> things in the first column are SQL standard actual vs some placeholder 
> you added from ODBC/etc.

As far as I understand thus far, the ODBC and SQL standard names are the 
same for all those types with codes >= 1. Although I agree having some 
distinction between them other than the numbers would be useful. The 
column marked ODBC is SQL Server, it's just using the ODBC driver, I'll 
need to correct that in the next version to make it more clear.

I'm not sure what types names I could create in a new left column that 
wouldn't match the current left column. I'm open to suggestions if you 
want to send me some ideas.


Lyle