Re: RDBMS comparison tool

I'm sorry. Me and Darren are having this conversation on two separate 
lists (this one and TTM) that we are both part of, but have a 
substantially different subscriber base. This response was supposed to 
have gone to TTM.


Lyle

On 30/12/2012 16:45, Lyle wrote:
> 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
>