0

Source: Beginning Databases with PostgreSQL: From Novice to Professional

Example:

Today, just about every useful database system supports SQL to some extent. In theory, SQL acts as a good unifier, since database applications written to use SQL as the interface to the database can be ported to other database systems with little cost in terms of time and effort. Commercial pressures however, dictate that database manufacturers distinguish their products one from another. This has led to SQL variations, not helped by the fact that the standard for SQL does not define commands for many of the database administration tasks that are an essential part of using a database in the real world. So, there are differences between the SQL used by Oracle, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and other database systems.

I have a little bit of a hard time understanding what exactly that's trying to say. I presume that this is an adverbial type of clause which explains why the situation mentioned above has led to different versions of the SQL language being available on the market instead of just one, but I'm not one hundred percent sure about that though. Plus, I don't think I understand what the actual words actually mean.

  • It looks as though a transitional clause has been edited out, expressing the idea that these variants have made porting more difficult, and that difficulty is certainly not ameliorated in any way by the fact that the SQL standard does not address routine administrative tasks. not helped by the fact is a sort of litotes, stating what something is, in an understated way, by stating what it is not. That difficulty is not made any less difficult by the fact that a lack of definition for routine tasks makes porting all the more difficult. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 19 '16 at 19:04
1

It's implying that the differences in SQL languages is a problem, and "the fact that the standard for SQL does not define commands for many of the database administration tasks" is not helping to resolve or prevent that problem.

| improve this answer | |
  • I agree with your understanding, but the paragraph seems to have a lacuna where a copy editor, perhaps, made a quick pass but did not fully integrate the edit. There is a clause missing whose sense would be something along the lines of "...led to SQL variants. These variants have made porting more difficult, and that difficulty has not been helped by the fact that the SQL standard does not define commands for many routine database administration tasks." – Tᴚoɯɐuo Apr 19 '16 at 19:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.