Which statement about Oracle and SQL-92 view definitions is NOT true?

Introduction / Context:
Views encapsulate SELECT queries and present virtual tables to consumers. Standards and vendor implementations impose rules on what clauses can appear directly in view definitions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• SQL-92 generally disallows ORDER BY directly in a basic view definition unless paired with a top-N limiting construct (vendor-specific).
• Oracle implements CREATE VIEW and supports querying views like tables.
• Some ORDER BY usage can be achieved via subqueries or top-N/fetch clauses in newer Oracle releases, but not as a guaranteed ordering attribute of the view.

Concept / Approach:
The idea that a view can guarantee sorted output is not portable; consumers should specify ORDER BY in their own SELECT. Saying “Oracle views cannot use ORDER BY in view definitions” is not universally correct in modern Oracle syntax (e.g., ORDER BY … FETCH FIRST in the view’s query), and ordering is not guaranteed unless the consumer query specifies it.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Developers commonly embed ORDER BY in subqueries or use FETCH FIRST with ORDER BY within the view’s defining SELECT in recent Oracle versions; however, consumers should still specify ORDER BY for deterministic ordering.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
CREATE VIEW support is standard in Oracle.
Views are queryable is intrinsically true.
SQL-92 ORDER BY limitation is historically true for bare view definitions.

Common Pitfalls:
Relying on a view’s embedded ordering for downstream queries; always include ORDER BY in the consumer query.

Final Answer:
Oracle views cannot use the ORDER BY clause in view definitions.