undefined | Better HN

0 pointshot_gril2y ago0 comments

If you were to write the equivalent of a SQL query in some other language, you'll probably make a lot more mistakes. Especially if you're trying to achieve the same performance. And I mean a read-only query, not even something with multi-writes and locking.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

randomdata2y ago· 2 in thread

I don't think that is true as I could use a better relational calculus that exhibits all the of the same positive attributes that SQL brings to the table. SQL's traps are not all fundamental, just straight up poor language design. SQL's biggest trap is where it grossly deviates from Codd's relational algebra model. A relational system that is more "pure" would solve many bug vectors right out of the gate.

hot_grilOP2y ago

What's an example of a SQL query that's misleading but wouldn't be if it stayed more like Codd's model?

The issues I have with SQL are simpler things like `timestamp with time zone` not really storing a time zone and actually being the thing you want for tz-independent timestamps.

randomdata2y ago

I'm not sure I have a great example in front of me – the bugs get fixed. I can point out that even `SELECT * FROM table` violates the relational model. I don't expect anyone is encountering bugs from that simple query as it is easy enough to reason about, but when you compound the complexity it becomes harder to remember where SQL is non-relational and to remember to account for that.

I suppose it can be avoided with extreme care, like properly managing memory in C, but a good language will help you out. Much like C, SQL is old so those traps may be excusable in a legacy language, but it is shame that we haven't put much effort into building something more modern. Where is the 'Rust' of SQL?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse