2 ms·

I don't know if jq can do joins but getting a list of codeblock languages is a pretty simple task for almost anyone in a text file. For complex queries I agree

by fjorde 5y ago

I don't know if jq can do joins but getting a list of codeblock languages is a pretty simple task for almost anyone in a text file. For complex queries I agree that you typically need a more expressive query language. I'm really not judging this syntax based on the 2 examples I've looked at, but I agree that I can mostly read all the words and stuff, but without the comments etc this is very dense and I don't think it's "intuitive". Compared to sql it's interesting, and I hope developers like it. I just am almost automatically revolted by the marketing hype train language of the last 15 years. None of the hype comes close to being accurate and it's just all so misleading. AWS services are among the most notorious in this regard, having sold an entire class of devs on the notion that aws would "abstract away complexity" only to have devs learning about db indices not at the cost of a slow query execution time for some customers, but $50,000 row-scan bills. AWS hype beasts have been "abstracting away complexity" for years just to tell the poor sap devs that they need intimate knowledge of query execution plans, for some poorly conceived and managed service aws put together after ripping off some os community. And the connection to aws is not immaterial. Every query is potentially business critical and also susceptible to tanking the entire business. I don't think we should necessarily try to treat queries as "trivial" or whatever.

atombender 5y ago
Actually, I'm not sure anything can be truly "intuitive". I think you're really talking about offering familiar concepts. In this case, the syntax might make more sense if you think of GROQ as a superset of JSON, because this is valid GROQ: { "a": 42, "b": [true, null] } But we also have functions, subqueries, joins, and so on: { "allArticles": *[_type == "article"] } Here, the asterisk simply means the array of "all objects", and [] is used to apply a filter predicate. To me, I don't find Jq at all intuitive. The fact that filtering a collection is expressed this way, for example: .[] | select(.type == "article") is not "intuitive", because it doesn't look like anything else. The pipe operator certainly behaves very differently from Unix shells; it's the "[]" part that causes iteration, not the pipe. I absolutely see your point about abstracting away complexity. Developers have a lot of knowledge in their heads about how SQL translates to execution complexity, and GROQ is more opaque. We do have an "explain" mode that shows the query plan, but we are still thinking about ways to make the execution model more transparent and understandable.
- fjorde 5y ago
  > To me, I don't find Jq at all intuitive. Same here. Intuitive is probably the wrong word. I think I'm still looking for the right word to use to describe the idea. I think there was some progress from a fb team that translated english language queries into sql. I hope there is more progress in the field so that the same people who write the content can search it and use it like a dev would. I think that given a stack of 5K blog posts, any dev can pump out a dozen charts and word graphs or whatever given some time, and it would all look pretty good but probably not have as much value as an editor's summary. But if the editor could also make use of the dev tooling to do more in depth research or produce some new insights, or get to the "important" information more quickly, than that would represent a step in the right direction.

by fjorde 5y ago

atombender 5y ago

Actually, I'm not sure anything can be truly "intuitive". I think you're really talking about offering familiar concepts. In this case, the syntax might make more sense if you think of GROQ as a superset of JSON, because this is valid GROQ: { "a": 42, "b": [true, null] } But we also have functions, subqueries, joins, and so on: { "allArticles": *[_type == "article"] } Here, the asterisk simply means the array of "all objects", and [] is used to apply a filter predicate. To me, I don't find Jq at all intuitive. The fact that filtering a collection is expressed this way, for example: .[] | select(.type == "article") is not "intuitive", because it doesn't look like anything else. The pipe operator certainly behaves very differently from Unix shells; it's the "[]" part that causes iteration, not the pipe. I absolutely see your point about abstracting away complexity. Developers have a lot of knowledge in their heads about how SQL translates to execution complexity, and GROQ is more opaque. We do have an "explain" mode that shows the query plan, but we are still thinking about ways to make the execution model more transparent and understandable.

fjorde 5y ago
> To me, I don't find Jq at all intuitive. Same here. Intuitive is probably the wrong word. I think I'm still looking for the right word to use to describe the idea. I think there was some progress from a fb team that translated english language queries into sql. I hope there is more progress in the field so that the same people who write the content can search it and use it like a dev would. I think that given a stack of 5K blog posts, any dev can pump out a dozen charts and word graphs or whatever given some time, and it would all look pretty good but probably not have as much value as an editor's summary. But if the editor could also make use of the dev tooling to do more in depth research or produce some new insights, or get to the "important" information more quickly, than that would represent a step in the right direction.