PG vs MSSQL language comparison ?

Started by Andreasalmost 14 years ago5 messagesgeneral
Jump to latest
#1Andreas
maps.on@gmx.net

Hi,

I'm not into comparing which DBMS is better as we all know ... kind of
... well ...

I'd like to find ressources to look up how one can do X in MSSQL when
one knows how it is done in PG's SQL and the other way around.

regards
Andreas

#2Grant Allen
gxallen@gmail.com
In reply to: Andreas (#1)
Re: PG vs MSSQL language comparison ?

On 26/05/2012 00:04, Andreas wrote:

Hi,

I'm not into comparing which DBMS is better as we all know ... kind of ... well ...

I'd like to find ressources to look up how one can do X in MSSQL when one knows how it is done in PG's SQL and the other way around.

regards
Andreas

Hi Andreas,

It's a little out of date (I've been meaning to update it for about 2 years now) and has some gaps, but try the Database Rosetta Stone.

http://www.grantondata.com/community/dbrosettastone.html

Let me know if you spot anything missing you'd like updated.

Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)

#3F. BROUARD / SQLpro
sqlpro@club-internet.fr
In reply to: Grant Allen (#2)
Re: PG vs MSSQL language comparison ?

Le 26/05/2012 06:36, Grant Allen a écrit :

On 26/05/2012 00:04, Andreas wrote:

Hi,

I'm not into comparing which DBMS is better as we all know ... kind of ... well ...

I'd like to find ressources to look up how one can do X in MSSQL when one knows how it is done in PG's SQL and the other way around.

regards
Andreas

Hi Andreas,

It's a little out of date (I've been meaning to update it for about 2 years now) and has some gaps, but try the Database Rosetta Stone.

http://www.grantondata.com/community/dbrosettastone.html

Very out of date...

some example :
Statistics Gathering:
CPU Costing, says no... But it is YES
Disk / IO Costing, says no... But it is YES
Since a lot !

Query Management:
Query/Resource Governor, says no... But it is YES (since V 2008)
View historic queries in system cache, says no... But it is YES
(since V 2005)

Parallelism
Parallel Sorts, says ?... But it is YES (since a lot)
Parallel Index (re)build, says ?... But it is YES (since V 2005)
Parallel (table) Reorganisation, says ?... But it is YES (since a lot)

same on datatype
DATE, TIME, DATETIME WITh TIME ZONE... have been added to 2008 version**

and some indication are wrong.
Example :
CLOB Datatype sauys no. It is yes vith text type almost since v 7 (1999 !)

Totally incomplete for date functions...

Let me know if you spot anything missing you'd like updated.

Ciao
Fuzzy
:-)

--
Frédéric BROUARD - expert SGBDR et SQL - MVP SQL Server - 06 11 86 40 66
Le site sur le langage SQL et les SGBDR : http://sqlpro.developpez.com
Enseignant Arts & Métiers PACA, ISEN Toulon et CESI/EXIA Aix en Provence
Audit, conseil, expertise, formation, modélisation, tuning, optimisation
*********************** http://www.sqlspot.com *************************

#4Marti Raudsepp
marti@juffo.org
In reply to: Andreas (#1)
Re: PG vs MSSQL language comparison ?

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Andreas <maps.on@gmx.net> wrote:

I'd like to find ressources to look up how one can do X in MSSQL when one
knows how it is done in PG's SQL and the other way around.

Here's another resource, going into more detail:
http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/

Regards,
Marti

#5Grant Allen
gxallen@gmail.com
In reply to: F. BROUARD / SQLpro (#3)
Re: PG vs MSSQL language comparison ?

On 27/05/2012 04:46, F. BROUARD / SQLpro wrote:

It's a little out of date (I've been meaning to update it for about 2 years now) and has some gaps, but try the Database Rosetta Stone.

http://www.grantondata.com/community/dbrosettastone.html

Very out of date...

Yep, agreed, as you found with the examples you shared :) Thanks for those, it's motivation to get my act in gear and bring it up to speed for 9.2.

:)