3 ms·
>doing more complicated query-like stuff That's some kind of fallacy - standard datastructures would totally destroy any-sql-alike thing, if it comes to perfor
by xxs 6y ago
>doing more complicated query-like stuff
That's some kind of fallacy - standard datastructures would totally destroy any-sql-alike thing, if it comes to performance (and memory footprint). I guess it does depend on where the background comes when it comes to convenience - or how people tend to see their data. However like I said - for close to 3 decades I have not seen a single reason to do so. On the contrary I've had cases where optimization of 3 orders of magnitude was possible.
- throwaway08320 6y ago> for close to 3 decades I have not seen a single reason to do so Evidently you don't have dataset far exceeding the amount of RAM you can afford. For a good example look at LMDB.
- jawns 6y agoIt's easier to find devs who know basic SQL than it is to find devs who know pandas or whatever your language specific SQL-like library is. And the more complicated the queries, the more the gulf widens.
- recursive 6y agoI don't think pandas was the proposal here. I think "standard data structures" refers to arrays, hash tables, trees, and the like.
- busterarm 6y agoPerformance is not god. It is not the altar at which we sacrifice all other considerations.