In relational databases, what is a key benefit of using a standard, vendor-neutral SQL language across systems and tools?

Introduction / Context:
SQL is the de facto standard language for interacting with relational databases. A common, standardized syntax lowers the learning curve for developers, analysts, and DBAs, and improves portability of knowledge between products such as PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQL Server, Oracle, and others.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The question asks for a benefit of a standard relational language.
• Consider organizational impacts such as training, portability, and vendor lock-in.
• Assume typical enterprise environments with multiple tools and teams.

Concept / Approach:
A unified, standard language reduces the number of dialects staff must learn, which directly reduces training costs and accelerates onboarding. While each DBMS has extensions, core SQL skills transfer well. This is a widely cited organizational benefit of standards.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Cross-platform teams routinely reuse SQL skills and patterns with minimal retraining, validating the benefit.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Increased dependence on a single vendor: Standard SQL reduces, not increases, vendor lock-in.
• Applications are not needed: Applications are still required; SQL does not replace business applications.
• All of the above: Bundles incorrect statements, so it cannot be correct.
• Simpler portability of skills and queries: True in spirit, but the question asks for which benefit; the original keyed correct choice is reduced training costs.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming standard SQL eliminates all vendor differences. Dialect nuances exist, but the core language still delivers training and portability benefits.

Final Answer:
Reduced training costs