9
\$\begingroup\$

and (short for Transact-SQL) both represent practically the same thing, which is Microsoft's proprietary RDBMS.

From Wikipedia:

Transact-SQL (T-SQL) is Microsoft's and Sybase's proprietary extension to SQL. [...]

Transact-SQL is central to using Microsoft SQL Server. All applications that communicate with an instance of SQL Server do so by sending Transact-SQL statements to the server, regardless of the user interface of the application.

As you can see, there is a lot of overlap...

If we were to keep one or the other, I think would be better to keep, as it is the language, rather than the technology/DB engine that is .

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Just FYI. Sysbase Adaptive Enterprise Server also uses T-SQL. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 22 '15 at 0:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RubberDuck Good point. We don't have a Sybase tag, so I guess T-SQL would also include that, if we were ever to get a Sybase-specific question. \$\endgroup\$ – Phrancis Jul 22 '15 at 0:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I just did a few searches. Neither Sysbase nor their server had any hits on the site. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 22 '15 at 0:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also, are there cases where someone would want to use the tag for... Idk... Automating sql-server something or other, or for CLR code that's not necessarily SQL? A clean up may be more appropriate. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 22 '15 at 1:01
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @RubberDuck SQL-CLR is an excellent use case. Only I don't recall ever seeing a post involving that. \$\endgroup\$ – Mathieu Guindon Jul 22 '15 at 1:33
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sounds like a pretty narrow edge case, perhaps in that case just the [database] tag would be OK? Or just [sql]? It might be so narrow of an edge case such that it might never even come up, though, as good of a use case as it is! \$\endgroup\$ – Phrancis Jul 22 '15 at 1:41
4
\$\begingroup\$

I disagree with the question's proposed solution: a synonym from to .

I am also going to disagree with the quoted text. This is wrong:

Transact-SQL is central to using Microsoft SQL Server. All applications that communicate with an instance of SQL Server do so by sending Transact-SQL statements to the server, regardless of the user interface of the application.

While it is technically accurate, the 'interfaces' used are often abstracted enough for the t-sql to be invisible (think ).

If there is to be a synonym, I believe the right one is to harmonize the SQL Server world with the other RDBMS's, and to synonym to just . Then, questions about SQL can all be tagged , and if the RDBMS is significant, it can be tuned with whatever back-end is relevant (, , etc.).

This allows for some questions to be tagged , and others to be tagged , and so on.

Bottom line:

Synonym

Many questions already have the tag but not all, so that's not a problem. The issue is that many questions do not have sql-server.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ T-SQL is a specific implementation of a SQL(anguage). I don't like this suggestion, but I'm failing at finding a good analogy. The Python tags come to mind. We decided not to synomize the specific versions into the master tag because their syntax was significantly different. I think the same theory applies here. PL/SQL is different enough from T-SQL that it doesn't make sense to point them both at the same master tag. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 22 '15 at 11:27
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @RubberDuck - I think we are agreeing here, but with different perspectives. You are saying "t-sql" is a special case of "sql", which is why I am suggesting that, if there has to be a synonym, then make that relationship clear. t-sql is sql, t-sql runs on sql-server, and sybase. An analogy would be ferrari, which is a car, and it runs on "road" and "racetrack", do you say ferrari is a car, or ferrari is a road, or do you leave it alone, and just say ferrari is "ferrari" and link in road, and car and racetrack when needed too,? \$\endgroup\$ – rolfl Jul 22 '15 at 12:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah. I think we agree, but we don't. Different means to the same end?? You're proposing that in order to specify the flavor, we add the RDBMS, right? I suppose that's not much different from keeping separate tags for each language. It just, somehow, doesn't sit right with me that every question would need two tags to specify the particular language being used. Do we have a pl/sql tag now? I need to check that. \$\endgroup\$ – RubberDuck Jul 22 '15 at 13:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @RubberDuck We have a [postgresql] tag, which is usually synonymous (for intents of this discussion) to PL/SQL; even though they are not the same thing per se, anything very specific to PL/SQL not encompassed by PostreSQL would probably be in a whole different language anyways, since that's basically what PL is for \$\endgroup\$ – Phrancis Jul 23 '15 at 1:26
  • \$\begingroup\$ @rolfl I went through the TSQL tagged questions missing SQL Server tag, and changed them (after making sure each was truly MS SQL Server). What to do with the TSQL tag now? Can we synonymize TSQL -> SQL for the remaining tagged questions? \$\endgroup\$ – Phrancis Jul 23 '15 at 1:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .