Separation of DDL and DML - was: Early and late binding.
- From: Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:58:57 GMT
x wrote:
With a SQL DBMSs one is forced to separate DDL from DML which may or may not be a good thing.
OK - I'm going to bite. In what respects does SQL enforce DDL separate from DML? And if you didn't do it the SQL way, how would you do it?
I suspect I know parts of the answer to the first question - but I do not understand why you think it a bad thing. I have no ideas about the second question yet.
-- Jonathan Leffler #include <disclaimer.h> Email: jleffler@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, jleffler@xxxxxxxxxx Guardian of DBD::Informix v2005.02 -- http://dbi.perl.org/ .
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Early and late binding.
- From: David Cressey
- Re: Early and late binding.
- From: x
- Early and late binding.
- Prev by Date: Re: candidate keys in abstract parent relations
- Next by Date: Re: MV and SQL
- Previous by thread: Re: Early and late binding.
- Next by thread: Re: Separation of DDL and DML - was: Early and late binding.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
