5 ms·

Sequel: A Database Toolkit for Ruby [GitHub]

48 points by emson 17y ago

jpcx01 17y ago
Official version is here: http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel Lots of good docs here: http://sequel.rubyforge.org/ http://sequel.rubyforge.org/ For anything SQL, Sequel is to me the best of breed library. Blows ActiveRecord away at anything. I used to like DataMapper when I'm building apps from scratch. But since then I've replaced that with MongoMapper to target MongoDB. Sequel is still always going to be in my tool box as its great for working with any existing SQL database.
- andrewbrown 17y ago
  yeah that fork is way behind with the original, follow this baby. http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel
simonw 17y ago
Why is this a link to a fork rather than the original?
- melvinram 17y ago
  Original: http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel
andrewbrown 17y ago
I'm liking the syntax but I don't think it has all the goodies that ActiveRecord offers. Though all this SQL stuff doesn't really matter because the future of web-apps are all going to be driven by non-relational databases such as MongoDB. I really do like the Sequel effort,the code is clean.
- huma 17y ago
  You may want to read the Sequel blog on comparison with ActiveRecord and the new Arel API: http://sequel.heroku.com/ http://sequel.heroku.com/
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "Though all this SQL stuff doesn't really matter because the future of web-apps are all going to be driven by non-relational databases such as MongoDB" On what do you base this? While "NoSQL" storage suits some class of applications, where's the evidence that it suits all applications?
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
aphyr 17y ago
I've used sequel and activerecord extensively--most recently at http://vodpod.com http://vodpod.com, which has, er, non-trivial database requirements. Hands down, Sequel is the superior library. Arbitrary many-through-many-through-many-... relationships, totally customizable callbacks for association building/caching, trivially easy master/slave and multi-master sharding, infinitely chainable and extensible subsets, powerful grouping and joining support... the list goes on and on. Plus it's bloody fast. let's put it this way: it is almost never necessary to drop to raw SQL with Sequel. The only cases in which I've done so have been implemented as Sequel features or plugins within three months. In ActiveRecord, we have to drop to SQL all the time. Plus, the code is clean. Extremely modular, readily extensible; anyone who's poked around in the AR source can tell you what a nightmare it is to figure out what's going on. Also, Jeremy Evans (the author), and the rest of the community around it, are awesome--check out #sequel on Freenode sometime.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  I started with AR for Jotbot (my desktop JRuby app), but it had assorted funkiness that made using outside of a gem environment too annoying, so I gave up. (Gem code should not have 'require "rubygems"' littered about. ) I had been using Sequel with Web apps already, and when I needed to add adapter code for the Java H2 DB it was pretty straightforward, plus Jeremy was quite helpful. Besides, Sequel always felt more like Ruby than AR. Big props to Jeremy and team for a sweet library. (Just wish it had a different name. :) )
  - tibbon 17y ago
    The name is ever so slightly problematic. Google still often thinks that Sequel is mySQL or SQL.
    - bk 17y ago
      Search for ruby +sequel <your-keywords>
- pkulak 17y ago
  Just the syntax alone is enough to move from ActiveRecord for any new project. The dataset/method chaining method really makes AR's hash passing seem verbose and cumbersome. Though, I hear AR is moving that way in the next major release, so they seem to know that as well as anyone else.
tibbon 17y ago
I've been using Sequel quite a bit with Sinatra and just Ruby by itself in scripts. The documentation could be a little better (isn't that always true) to keep up with the rapid development, but overall its rather amazing. I wish there was a good page on the main site about why/how it is different than ActiveRecord. My other friends are always wondering, "Why do you want to use that instead of AR?" and I can't honestly give them a perfectly clear answer. Mainly because it works well for me. The absolute best part is that Jeremy Evans is amazing in IRC at helping out anyone with issues. I've pasted him huge sections of code that he's helped me out with before. He never treats me like a n00b, or flames someone for asking a question that they themselves may have even asked before. He's really a nice guy and a strong model for how a primary project maintainer/lead can help bring others in.
davidalln 17y ago
Thanks for posting this. I was trying to get through ActiveRecord and DataMapper on non-Rails/Merb/Sinatra ruby programs when I arbitrarily went to HackerNews and saw this: a much simpler solution to what I needed (without using straight up SQL which I find is frustrating to work with and debug).
mjw 17y ago
Another Sequel user here, very happy. The only thing I'd like to see would be a more flexible object mapping layer on top of the relational core. Something along the lines of Python's SQLAlchemy. Sequel::Model is a simple ActiveRecord-style ORM layer (in the sense of Fowler's ActiveRecord pattern) and in a way is very flexible, if you don't mind implementing a bunch of lower-level hooks for certain things. But sometimes you do want a more heavyweight session-based approach where you have an object model with a bunch of associations, a flexibly-configured mapping of that object model to the database, and an ORM which knows how to take a batch of changes to the object graph and commit them to the database in one transaction. Still yet to see a tool like this for ruby, but I think sequel could be a good foundation for it.
j_baker 17y ago
So is "database toolkit" the trendy way to say "object-relational mapper" these days? I guess what I'm getting at is why should I as a random HN reader care about Sequel as opposed to other ORMs like Hibernate, nHibernate, SQLAlchemy, Storm, Subsonic, or any other ORM in any language? What makes it neat?
larrywright 17y ago
I've used both Sequel and Active Record. I like Active Record when working with a brand new Rails-ish database, but for working with anything else, Sequel is great. It's much more of a general purpose database library than AR is, which makes it perfect for non-greenfield work.
LucaB 17y ago
I would like to find some good support for sequel in rails3, as it's happening with datamapper: datamapper's crew seems to be very "active" in the domain of "marketing", taking the rails3 occasion to low (near to zero) the barriers to jump on the boat... is there anything like that for sequel? I would like to try, and that would be a great encouragement... Thanks a lot!

48 points by emson 17y ago

Official version is here: http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel Lots of good docs here: http://sequel.rubyforge.org/ http://sequel.rubyforge.org/ For anything SQL, Sequel is to me the best of breed library. Blows ActiveRecord away at anything. I used to like DataMapper when I'm building apps from scratch. But since then I've replaced that with MongoMapper to target MongoDB. Sequel is still always going to be in my tool box as its great for working with any existing SQL database.

andrewbrown 17y ago
yeah that fork is way behind with the original, follow this baby. http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel

simonw 17y ago

Why is this a link to a fork rather than the original?

melvinram 17y ago
Original: http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel http://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel

andrewbrown 17y ago

I'm liking the syntax but I don't think it has all the goodies that ActiveRecord offers. Though all this SQL stuff doesn't really matter because the future of web-apps are all going to be driven by non-relational databases such as MongoDB. I really do like the Sequel effort,the code is clean.

huma 17y ago
You may want to read the Sequel blog on comparison with ActiveRecord and the new Arel API: http://sequel.heroku.com/ http://sequel.heroku.com/
jamesbritt 17y ago
"Though all this SQL stuff doesn't really matter because the future of web-apps are all going to be driven by non-relational databases such as MongoDB" On what do you base this? While "NoSQL" storage suits some class of applications, where's the evidence that it suits all applications?

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

aphyr 17y ago

I've used sequel and activerecord extensively--most recently at http://vodpod.com http://vodpod.com, which has, er, non-trivial database requirements. Hands down, Sequel is the superior library. Arbitrary many-through-many-through-many-... relationships, totally customizable callbacks for association building/caching, trivially easy master/slave and multi-master sharding, infinitely chainable and extensible subsets, powerful grouping and joining support... the list goes on and on. Plus it's bloody fast. let's put it this way: it is almost never necessary to drop to raw SQL with Sequel. The only cases in which I've done so have been implemented as Sequel features or plugins within three months. In ActiveRecord, we have to drop to SQL all the time. Plus, the code is clean. Extremely modular, readily extensible; anyone who's poked around in the AR source can tell you what a nightmare it is to figure out what's going on. Also, Jeremy Evans (the author), and the rest of the community around it, are awesome--check out #sequel on Freenode sometime.

jamesbritt 17y ago
I started with AR for Jotbot (my desktop JRuby app), but it had assorted funkiness that made using outside of a gem environment too annoying, so I gave up. (Gem code should not have 'require "rubygems"' littered about. ) I had been using Sequel with Web apps already, and when I needed to add adapter code for the Java H2 DB it was pretty straightforward, plus Jeremy was quite helpful. Besides, Sequel always felt more like Ruby than AR. Big props to Jeremy and team for a sweet library. (Just wish it had a different name. :) )
- tibbon 17y ago
  The name is ever so slightly problematic. Google still often thinks that Sequel is mySQL or SQL.
  - bk 17y ago
    Search for ruby +sequel <your-keywords>
pkulak 17y ago
Just the syntax alone is enough to move from ActiveRecord for any new project. The dataset/method chaining method really makes AR's hash passing seem verbose and cumbersome. Though, I hear AR is moving that way in the next major release, so they seem to know that as well as anyone else.

tibbon 17y ago

I've been using Sequel quite a bit with Sinatra and just Ruby by itself in scripts. The documentation could be a little better (isn't that always true) to keep up with the rapid development, but overall its rather amazing. I wish there was a good page on the main site about why/how it is different than ActiveRecord. My other friends are always wondering, "Why do you want to use that instead of AR?" and I can't honestly give them a perfectly clear answer. Mainly because it works well for me. The absolute best part is that Jeremy Evans is amazing in IRC at helping out anyone with issues. I've pasted him huge sections of code that he's helped me out with before. He never treats me like a n00b, or flames someone for asking a question that they themselves may have even asked before. He's really a nice guy and a strong model for how a primary project maintainer/lead can help bring others in.

davidalln 17y ago

Thanks for posting this. I was trying to get through ActiveRecord and DataMapper on non-Rails/Merb/Sinatra ruby programs when I arbitrarily went to HackerNews and saw this: a much simpler solution to what I needed (without using straight up SQL which I find is frustrating to work with and debug).

mjw 17y ago

Another Sequel user here, very happy. The only thing I'd like to see would be a more flexible object mapping layer on top of the relational core. Something along the lines of Python's SQLAlchemy. Sequel::Model is a simple ActiveRecord-style ORM layer (in the sense of Fowler's ActiveRecord pattern) and in a way is very flexible, if you don't mind implementing a bunch of lower-level hooks for certain things. But sometimes you do want a more heavyweight session-based approach where you have an object model with a bunch of associations, a flexibly-configured mapping of that object model to the database, and an ORM which knows how to take a batch of changes to the object graph and commit them to the database in one transaction. Still yet to see a tool like this for ruby, but I think sequel could be a good foundation for it.

j_baker 17y ago

So is "database toolkit" the trendy way to say "object-relational mapper" these days? I guess what I'm getting at is why should I as a random HN reader care about Sequel as opposed to other ORMs like Hibernate, nHibernate, SQLAlchemy, Storm, Subsonic, or any other ORM in any language? What makes it neat?

larrywright 17y ago

I've used both Sequel and Active Record. I like Active Record when working with a brand new Rails-ish database, but for working with anything else, Sequel is great. It's much more of a general purpose database library than AR is, which makes it perfect for non-greenfield work.

LucaB 17y ago

I would like to find some good support for sequel in rails3, as it's happening with datamapper: datamapper's crew seems to be very "active" in the domain of "marketing", taking the rails3 occasion to low (near to zero) the barriers to jump on the boat... is there anything like that for sequel? I would like to try, and that would be a great encouragement... Thanks a lot!