 |
 |
Archives of the TeradataForum
Message Posted: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 @ 19:03:20 GMT
| Subj: | | Re: Derived tables on V2R5 |
| |
| From: | | Victor Sokovin |
Dieter,
| | What do you mean by "new syntax"? | |
| | Derived tables have been part of SQL (at least) since SQL-92, but not part of Entry Level (Full Level in SQL-92). | |
| | Btw, in SQL:1999 it's still not part of Core SQL (Feature F591) | |
I used the word "new" in the sense of something uncertain and controversial which divides opinions. I would also apply this word to such things
as DAB or SACD. Although there are some people who have adopted them years ago, the majority would still know nothing about them.
Of course, the idea of unnamed views is not new. It is probably so simple that it is hard to say when it was coined for the first time.
However, implementation of derived tables has take a surprisingly long time. For instance, Sybase has only introduced them in 12.5.1! There are
still RDBMS which do not support this feature at all. Another property which is common for new features is marketing hype surrounding them, like
magical performance improvement etc. That's why I'd call derived tables "new", but you decide for yourself.
Regards,
Victor
| |
