3 ms·
I have come to realize why. SQL has a problem, less of technical nature but more of organizational/knowledge transfer nature. I have spent way to much time in
by dathinab 4y ago
I have come to realize why.
SQL has a problem, less of technical nature but more of organizational/knowledge transfer nature.
I have spent way to much time in discussions about schema, SQL types, SQL library usage and anything ORMs. Also a lot of hidden gotchas, like A LOT. Through most aren't really hidden it's more like people somehow having major knowledge gaps without realizing it. Like not understanding isolation levels and therefor misunderstanding which guarantees a transaction provides. Or somehow fundamentally rejecting that you design an application with a specific transaction level in mind and changing it later is non trivial, potentially to a point of making the change infeasible. Or pointless discussions about integer sizing and signing and the docent different ways you could map a unsiged 16bit number to SQL. Or people not understanding row/column locks. Or getting bitten by upserts not allowing upserting the same (compound)key twice in the same statement in some dbs. Or ...
Well I'm kinda feed up. But I still had way worse experiences with Mongo (but that was ~8? years ago).
- hot_gril 4y agoYeah, SQL has its problems too, a lot of them seemingly from legacy support. I could write a nice one-page guide to using SQL the easy way and getting past the gotchas I've waded through, but it'd drown in the noise. The worst/funniest one is how you should only use `timestamptz` and not `timestamp`. It's also complicated out of necessity. A relational DBMS is doing a lot of things people maybe take for granted or don't realize they need. I think NoSQL was the natural next step after ORMs, which are also used in a lot of places they shouldn't.