Talk:Data manipulation language

Merge
Recommend merging DELETE, INSERT, UPDATE, MERGE, SELECT, and TRUNCATE statements into DML article and redirecting these statements there. Please post comments here by 19 May 2007. SqlPac 05:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

>Why DML? It would make more sense for it to be merged with the SQL language, since they're all SQL keywords. I use this site a lot for my memory and as a syntax check for programming SQL. -Alexis


 * A new SQL DML article might be in order, but the SQL article itself, while it does discuss these keywords, covers a lot more material like the ISO SQL Standards, SQL extensions (SQL/CLI, SQL/XML, etc.), conformance, etc. I think the SQL article (already good sized), would grow very large if all these subsections, syntaxes, and code samples were added.  My main concern is that these statements by themselves (DELETE, INSERT, ...) are far too small to really be made into full-blown good articles by themselves.  I do think they would make one good article if combined somewhere though.  What do you think?  Thanks. SqlPac 14:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * How about an article entitled "SQL Syntax" then?

> DML is a much broader topic than SQL syntax. This article currently describes the syntax and usage of the SQL insert statement. I recommend leaving as is, but linking to this article from a larger SQL article, which is linked to from the DML article.

>I agree that large articles make it frustrating for people to browse for pertinant information. I like the idea of an SQL DML article that combines all these. From what I saw, the DML article itself is fairly large already, also. If it combined these, then you'd have to combine others with it, as well. If they were all combined, would they still be searchable on their own from the search box? -Alexis


 * A Redirect Page can point to a subsection of a page. For instance, a Redirect for Delete (SQL) could point to SQL DML#DELETE, and drop you right into the DELETE subsection of the SQL DML article page (if they were combined like that).  I like the idea of a separate SQL DML article, but I think including all the SQL DML articles under the umbrella of the SQL article itself might make that article unwieldly -- it's pretty big as is, and there's already a lot more to be added without the DML breakdown.  Thanks. SqlPac 01:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

>Awesome. :) That'd work, then.  I really like that you guys work with what the general public wants and needs.  Wikipedia is great.  Keep up the good work!  -Alexis

I only just found this article on Wikipedia. I was really pleased to see Wikipedia including specialist articles like this. I would oppose any merging or dilution of the content into other pages. Understanding each SQL command is a worthy topic for a Wikipedia entry, even though it wouldn't be a worthy topic for a paper encyclopedia. jodastephen 16:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the frequency and importance of use for these most basic SQL statements really warrants for each of them having their own page, not every article has to be 50 pages long, actually the ones that are that long are very bad to read! Beside on some of them I would rather see some more complex examples added them trying to put them together. Fgwaller July 5 2007

I oppose any such mergers, for reasons stated by jodastephen and Fgwaller. --Amit 23:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it more intuitive to find the text describing each command at its own article. I'm pretty sure there's no notability guide that would apply to individual SQL commands, which is one reason that some topics are merged together. Of course, a summary article might be beneficial (it looks like SQL itself has a passable one)... but I'm not certain we need one. Soon it will be two months from SqlPac's comment above; if nobody else does it, I'll remove the templates on the 17th. --GargoyleMT 15:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the templates, albeit a bit later than I intended. --GargoyleMT 21:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify how a DML is (or is not) a 4GL. ---talk 16:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 (talk)

SELECT
According to the ISO SQL:2003 standard, only one variation of SELECT is a DML statement: the SELECT...INTO... single-row variation. SELECT without INTO is not classified under the standard as a DML statement. It is classified as a "Query" statement, completely separate from the "data manipulation" portion of the standard. SqlPac (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost forgot - SQL DML *does* include statements to manage and retrieve data through cursors, which is not included in this article.SqlPac (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In at least some implementations SELECT ... INTO ... syntax approximates to CREATE TABLE bla AS select-query which is a DDL statement . I'm specifically thinking of PostgreSQL & Sybase SQL Server, but I think this is true of others. Briefly DML changes data structures, DML changes data, SELECT is about retrieving data (?DRL). Semudobia (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Corrected description of SQL as imperative
An earlier editor referred to SQL as an imperative language. With the exception of ANSI/ISO's procedural language, added to SQL late in the process, SQL is strictly a declarative language. This is an important point in that it is one of the main distinctions between Network and Relational (SQL) databases.Jcfried (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)