4 ms·

NoSQL refers to non-relational DBMSes, not a literal lack of SQL... QUEL is, if anything, closer to relational algebra than SQL is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by pygy_ 9y ago

NoSQL refers to non-relational DBMSes, not a literal lack of SQL... QUEL is, if anything, closer to relational algebra than SQL is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUEL_query_languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUEL_query_languages QUEL is a better language (more consistent), and SQL won not on technical grounds, but because Larry Ellison is a better salesman than Michael Stonebraker.

justinclift 9y ago
Yeah, I wondered if anyone was going to be pedantic about that. ;)
- arrel 9y ago
  I would call that "interesting" instead of "pedantic"
  - justinclift 9y ago
    Yeah, you're probably right.
- kkirsche 9y ago
  That's not being pedantic
- jlg23 9y ago
  "Pedantic"? Your post is wholly based on time travel (~"nosql predates sql") and introduces a completely alternative evolution of database design in which quel never happened and we go "full circle" to the nosql-that-was-prior-to-sql.
  - derefr 9y ago
    I don't think the parent claimed that NoSQL existed at the time; just that Postgres was a NoSQL database as we understand the term today. Like describing a wandering swordsman in ancient China as a "knight-errant", even if knights themselves as legally-warranted weapon-carriers didn't yet exist. Which is not to say that the poster wasn't wrong about their claim, but it's not invalid to make said claim in casual English in the particular way you're implying. Though, also, in the more general case, "NoSQL" databases did certainly exist at the time Postgres was conceived (Postgres just wasn't one of them.) Navigational databases like IBM IMS were what we'd call "a NoSQL database" if they were conceived today.
    - pgaddict 9y ago
      I don't think Postgres was "NoSQL database as we understand the term today". The basis of NoSQL is not the lack of SQL but the non-relational data model. Postgres (mostly) sticks to the relational data model, although it performs surprisingly well when used as a NoSQL data store.
      - justinclift 9y ago
        Well, I definitely meant it as "the lack of SQL" when I wrote above. Didn't realise people would actually give a crap to the point they have though. ;)
        pgaddict 9y ago
        Thank God you haven't claimed it was webscale. We'd get nuts.
        dorcus_maximus 9y ago
        Then it is a case of what you meant and what you said being different things. So, yeah, people give a crap when something is confusing or incorrect. I mean, we write code, right? Being correct matters. NoSQL means it is something other than a relational database.

by pygy_ 9y ago

justinclift 9y ago

Yeah, I wondered if anyone was going to be pedantic about that. ;)

arrel 9y ago
I would call that "interesting" instead of "pedantic"
- justinclift 9y ago
  Yeah, you're probably right.
kkirsche 9y ago
That's not being pedantic
jlg23 9y ago
"Pedantic"? Your post is wholly based on time travel (~"nosql predates sql") and introduces a completely alternative evolution of database design in which quel never happened and we go "full circle" to the nosql-that-was-prior-to-sql.
- derefr 9y ago
  I don't think the parent claimed that NoSQL existed at the time; just that Postgres was a NoSQL database as we understand the term today. Like describing a wandering swordsman in ancient China as a "knight-errant", even if knights themselves as legally-warranted weapon-carriers didn't yet exist. Which is not to say that the poster wasn't wrong about their claim, but it's not invalid to make said claim in casual English in the particular way you're implying. Though, also, in the more general case, "NoSQL" databases did certainly exist at the time Postgres was conceived (Postgres just wasn't one of them.) Navigational databases like IBM IMS were what we'd call "a NoSQL database" if they were conceived today.
  - pgaddict 9y ago
    I don't think Postgres was "NoSQL database as we understand the term today". The basis of NoSQL is not the lack of SQL but the non-relational data model. Postgres (mostly) sticks to the relational data model, although it performs surprisingly well when used as a NoSQL data store.
    - justinclift 9y ago
      Well, I definitely meant it as "the lack of SQL" when I wrote above. Didn't realise people would actually give a crap to the point they have though. ;)
      - pgaddict 9y ago
        Thank God you haven't claimed it was webscale. We'd get nuts.
      - dorcus_maximus 9y ago
        Then it is a case of what you meant and what you said being different things. So, yeah, people give a crap when something is confusing or incorrect. I mean, we write code, right? Being correct matters. NoSQL means it is something other than a relational database.