This looks like a sql-92 standard. I know several work ways to around
this discrepancy, but nothing as nice as the actual position function?
I mean they implemented replace(str, str) for gosh sakes. You have to
implement position in some fashion to do a replace, so it isn't that
much additional work would have to be done. I mean one work around is
to do

select * from foobar where searchfield is not null and searchfield <>
"" and thissucks is not null and thissucks <> "" and

length(replace(thissucks, searchfield,"")) <>  length(thissucks)

will tell you if searchfield is contained in the field thissucks. I
don't think that you can use "like" because you are comparing field to
field. instead of field to search string.

Of course if you are using this to parse a string the above method is
no good. Of course there are complicated sql ways to parse a string.

I have had 2 developers in the last week ask me for ways to implement
something that would have been made easy by using the position
function.

Am I missing an easy way to get position without writing my own stored
procedure or extension.