ZetaSQL – A SQL Analyzer Framework from Google (opens in new tab)

Not super sure if it follows any of them, but it might be ANSI 2011, since Cloud Spanner SQL is described as "ANSI 2011 with extensions", and I would expect that to be a strict subset of ZetaSQL.

For some more context, ZetaSQL is the thing we've standardized our internal systems on, aka F1, Dremel/BigQuery, Spanner (and there's a few others). The F1 Query paper makes a light reference to this in S7.2 http://www.vldb.org/pvldb/vol11/p1835-samwel.pdf.

For me, the most valuable feature of it has been that protos are an explicitly defined data type, since we use protos for pretty much everything. Docs: https://github.com/google/zetasql/blob/master/docs/one-pager...

EDIT: BigQuery SQL is described as "compliant with the SQL 2011 standard and has extensions", and I would also expect that to be a strict subset of ZetaSQL.

Google has it's own internal SQL dialect. It's the same that is also used in Cloud Spanner. I think it's mostly standard complaint, but less feature complete than the standard sql dialects.

I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t follow any; I can’t imagine any significant benefit (if you’re not chasing strict compatibility, general SQL should take you more than far enough on the beginner-friendly front) and significant benefit from doing a custom SQL

There will hopefully be some integration with Calcite in the future. The ZetaSQL team has been in discussion about this on our mailing list :)

    We will also be releasing more documentation over time,
    particular related to developing engines with this framework.

Looks like they intend to resolve that.

> 22365 lines (18045 sloc) 599 KB

That is a truly enormous "one-pager". I thought my scroll bar was bugged!

SQL parser. Input: text in a standardized SQL dialect, output: a data structure describing what the user wants done.

No answer to this question. Also interested.

Still using Dremel SQL occasionally and I tend to agree that certain things are easier in Dremel SQL. But it's a canonical example of continuously applying convenient patches making things worse. While something is easier to write, expressing something else becomes impossible. Examples are complicated Protos with multiple layers of repeated/map/struct stuffs...

With Google SQL, it's really verbose but a conceptually coherent design just gives you less surprises.

I'd say I like the latter more.