ODBC portability claim:\nIf an application is written against the Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) interface, can it process any ODBC-compliant database with no program code changes at all?

Introduction / Context:
This item probes the portability promise of Open Database Connectivity (ODBC). ODBC is a common C API that standardizes how applications connect to data sources via drivers. The statement suggests a “write once, run anywhere” outcome with absolutely no program code changes whenever databases are ODBC-compliant.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The application uses ODBC APIs for connections and queries.
• Alternative DBMSs provide ODBC drivers and advertise conformance.
• Only program code changes are under consideration; configuration changes such as connection strings or DSNs are not “code.”

Concept / Approach:
ODBC standardizes the call interface and defines conformance levels. However, SQL dialects, data types, catalog schemas, functions, and behaviors differ among DBMSs. Even within ODBC, drivers vary in supported escape sequences, scalar functions, and transaction/locking semantics. Therefore, applications commonly require at least minor SQL or mapping changes to run on a different DBMS, despite ODBC compliance.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Recognize that ODBC abstracts connection and basic operations, not complete SQL uniformity.Compare SQL features: identity/sequence syntax, date/time functions, outer joins, pagination, and stored procedure invocation differ widely.Note type system mismatches (NUMERIC precision, Unicode, large object handling) that often require code or SQL adaptation.Conclude that “no code changes at all” is an overstatement; portability improves but is not absolute.

Verification / Alternative check:
Test the same application with two drivers (e.g., SQL Server and MySQL). Queries using vendor-specific functions or proprietary SQL will fail without adjustment even though both drivers are ODBC-compliant.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Correct” ignores real SQL differences. Vendor-specific exceptions (e.g., “true for Oracle only”) are arbitrary and incorrect. Limiting the claim to spreadsheets misses the broader DBMS context and still overstates portability.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming conformance level equals feature parity; overlooking connection string/DSN differences; assuming identical transaction isolation behaviors across drivers.

Final Answer:
Incorrect