The Sql ranking OVERture

[steve]

A lot of sql users have a hard time reconciling the idea that a table
is by
definition an unordered set and the ordering involved in the sql
server 2005 ranking functions. This article attempts to fill in the
missing pieces of explanation that sql seems to have OVERlooked. The
article takes the view that knowledge of the functions does not
consist of just 'how' to use them. Perhaps it's possible to squeeze in
'what' they really are, where they came from. As far as a relational
database can realizes them.

http://beyondsql.blogspot.com/2008/0...-overture.html

[B D Jensen]

Hi!
I have been very happy for the analytic function in Oracle-SQL (PL/
SQL),
so I really miss the full support for them in TSQL
/Bjorn

[steve]

On Apr 23, 6:42 am, B D Jensen <[e-mail]:

Hi!
I have been very happy for the analytic function in Oracle-SQL (PL/
SQL),
so I really miss the full support for them in TSQL
/Bjorn

Hello,

Well that is a very different issue than what I was talking about:) MS
doesn't have 'full' support of them because they make decisions about
what they add to Sql Server based on different criteria than Oracle
and DB2. MS has had over 8 years to add full support of analytic
functions and they haven't. That should tell you something:) Many
times MS marches to a different tune than its competitors:)

Let me add that 'all' analytic functions can be understood in the
framework I suggested. But I understand that for many knowing what is
behind them is irrelevant. It is only necessary to know how to use
them. Perhaps sql flourishes best with the uncluttered mind. But I'm
always holding out hope that there are those who are exceptions:)

www.beyondsql.blogspot.com