5 ms·

SQL is masquerades as declarative. It's relational algebra in disguise. This results in... - Queries that are difficult to interpret/verify. - Non trivial amo

by fny 4y ago

SQL is masquerades as declarative. It's relational algebra in disguise. This results in... - Queries that are difficult to interpret/verify. - Non trivial amount of effort to go from question to query: I often feel like I have to jump through hoops to obtain something trivial. I have to think, and I don't want to think.

dasil003 4y ago
I agree that SQL is needlessly baroque. Not sure whether I agree that there are too many hoops for trivial things though. Leaving SQL ergonomics aside for the moment, isn't relational algebra something which does require one to think carefully to avoid hastily producing plausible but incorrect queries?
alliao 4y ago
PowerBI is definitely down the "don't want to think" alley, lots of misleading graphs are born that way lol
- spaghettiToy 4y ago
  Disagree. Microsoft sells these as "unskilled", but at the end of the day, you still need skill but also perseverance. At least SQL is old enough to get plenty of relevant search results. You can be a copy-paste DJ if you really can't figure it out.
  - alliao 4y ago
    I agree! the bar's so low that I've seen a lot of people just click around till they get a pretty graph without knowing what/why they did!
nextos 4y ago
It's relational algebra, plus relational calculi. > Fundamentally, SQL lacks meaningful abstraction My RDBMS course at college was really hardcore and SQL code answers for exam questions were enormous. One neat trick they didn't teach us, but still perfectly legal SQL:1999, is to use WITH recursive constructs. This way you can decompose very complex queries into simple ones, that can tested independently.
- grvdrm 4y ago
  The recursive stuff is pretty cool. In general, I like CTEs a way to break queries into pieces to improve readability and understanding (among other improvements). Also, integrating aggregate functions along with row_number() and similar functions to perform more complex work with less code.
funcDropShadow 4y ago
> SQL is masquerades as declarative. It's relational algebra in disguise. IMHO declarative and relational algebra are orthogonal concepts. And why do you say SQL is relational algebra in disguise (paraphrased) ? Most introductions to SQL I've read, but certainly the SQL page on Wikipedia [1], starts with a remark about Codd's relational model. Granted SQL does not implement it perfectly, and it is not perfectly declarative, although that is a matter of taste. > Non trivial amount of effort to go from question to query: I often feel like I have to jump through hoops to obtain something trivial. I've had colleagues which expressed similar sentiments, but I have the opposite impression. I think I can express many queries on a much higher abstraction level than with most other languages. > I have to think, and I don't want to think. Not wanting to think while writing code is an understandable wish, but also a big red flag about developers for me. Even the best AI with perfect mind reading capabilities will not be able to execute the query you want, if you don't know what you want yourself. Even the AI would guess sometimes right, you would have no way of knowing whether it was right or wrong. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL
- fny 4y ago
  > Not wanting to think while writing code is an understandable wish, but also a big red flag about developers for me. Dude... these are simple queries. I have *far* more important things to ponder than the specific incantations needed to get one of the values that correspond to a maximum.
  - trimethylpurine 4y ago
    max() is an iso standard function. But you need to think relationally to express exactly which maximum you're looking for, that's true. I can see wanting the language to do that for you, but that would be extremely limiting, since every problem seeking the "maximum" isn't remotely similar. Imagine a request for fewer tools in a toolbox. It might take time to learn where they are located, but they are all in the box for a reason. There's a certain point in learning SQL where you stop thinking about your work in rows and columns and you start thinking in tables. When that happens, you'll easily write good code with very little thinking. Give yourself time. Also look into dynamic SQL if you're concerned with repetition. There's no reason SQL should be overly so.
usehackernews 4y ago
I want to train a language model (or use existing ones) to translate question to query for trivial questions. I find 80% of queries that people want across a company are trivial. I’d have saved myself many many hours over the years if people could just ask a question in natural language rather than asking me to write a query.

by fny 4y ago

dasil003 4y ago

I agree that SQL is needlessly baroque. Not sure whether I agree that there are too many hoops for trivial things though. Leaving SQL ergonomics aside for the moment, isn't relational algebra something which does require one to think carefully to avoid hastily producing plausible but incorrect queries?

alliao 4y ago

PowerBI is definitely down the "don't want to think" alley, lots of misleading graphs are born that way lol

spaghettiToy 4y ago
Disagree. Microsoft sells these as "unskilled", but at the end of the day, you still need skill but also perseverance. At least SQL is old enough to get plenty of relevant search results. You can be a copy-paste DJ if you really can't figure it out.
- alliao 4y ago
  I agree! the bar's so low that I've seen a lot of people just click around till they get a pretty graph without knowing what/why they did!

nextos 4y ago

It's relational algebra, plus relational calculi. > Fundamentally, SQL lacks meaningful abstraction My RDBMS course at college was really hardcore and SQL code answers for exam questions were enormous. One neat trick they didn't teach us, but still perfectly legal SQL:1999, is to use WITH recursive constructs. This way you can decompose very complex queries into simple ones, that can tested independently.

grvdrm 4y ago
The recursive stuff is pretty cool. In general, I like CTEs a way to break queries into pieces to improve readability and understanding (among other improvements). Also, integrating aggregate functions along with row_number() and similar functions to perform more complex work with less code.

funcDropShadow 4y ago

> SQL is masquerades as declarative. It's relational algebra in disguise. IMHO declarative and relational algebra are orthogonal concepts. And why do you say SQL is relational algebra in disguise (paraphrased) ? Most introductions to SQL I've read, but certainly the SQL page on Wikipedia [1], starts with a remark about Codd's relational model. Granted SQL does not implement it perfectly, and it is not perfectly declarative, although that is a matter of taste. > Non trivial amount of effort to go from question to query: I often feel like I have to jump through hoops to obtain something trivial. I've had colleagues which expressed similar sentiments, but I have the opposite impression. I think I can express many queries on a much higher abstraction level than with most other languages. > I have to think, and I don't want to think. Not wanting to think while writing code is an understandable wish, but also a big red flag about developers for me. Even the best AI with perfect mind reading capabilities will not be able to execute the query you want, if you don't know what you want yourself. Even the AI would guess sometimes right, you would have no way of knowing whether it was right or wrong. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL

fny 4y ago
> Not wanting to think while writing code is an understandable wish, but also a big red flag about developers for me. Dude... these are simple queries. I have *far* more important things to ponder than the specific incantations needed to get one of the values that correspond to a maximum.
- trimethylpurine 4y ago
  max() is an iso standard function. But you need to think relationally to express exactly which maximum you're looking for, that's true. I can see wanting the language to do that for you, but that would be extremely limiting, since every problem seeking the "maximum" isn't remotely similar. Imagine a request for fewer tools in a toolbox. It might take time to learn where they are located, but they are all in the box for a reason. There's a certain point in learning SQL where you stop thinking about your work in rows and columns and you start thinking in tables. When that happens, you'll easily write good code with very little thinking. Give yourself time. Also look into dynamic SQL if you're concerned with repetition. There's no reason SQL should be overly so.

usehackernews 4y ago

I want to train a language model (or use existing ones) to translate question to query for trivial questions. I find 80% of queries that people want across a company are trivial. I’d have saved myself many many hours over the years if people could just ask a question in natural language rather than asking me to write a query.