5 ms·

Honestly, I started on the ORM hate train when I first started and wrote my own queries in an effort to be "performant", but my frankenstein of writing direct q

Honestly, I started on the ORM hate train when I first started and wrote my own queries in an effort to be "performant", but my frankenstein of writing direct queries and abstracting code to be reusable became basically a super shitty ORM that was a nightmare to maintain for a large codebase lol. I don' think there's anything wrong with it and for 90% of CRUD actions it's what you should choose. By the time you hit performance issues you've probably thought of something else anyway.

layoric 4y ago
I am the same, the advice of "learn SQL" is still very important. Most ORMs have the escape hatch of just mapping results of a straight SQL query to an expected structure (thinking of typed languages like C#/Java here). 95% of the time I can just use the ORM to make simple queries in a easy to maintain way for your application. For the 5% of queries that are either complex or can't be easily represented via your ORM of choice, declare the expected type response and use that escape hatch to write your performant SQL. I've been on projects where the team has re-invented an ORM organically, and I've never seen it go well. Likewise with projects that are ORM 'purest', bending themselves over backwards to use an ORM for a query that can't easily be represented by whatever query syntax it has. This is why I still think 'lite' weight ORMs are the best of both worlds since they usually have a pretty good experience for common/easy queries but then when things get tricky, it is best to just use SQL and map to an app language data structure for the results. I mostly use OrmLite [0] in dotnet and have found it has a balance that done well by me for years (note I now work at ServiceStack who built OrmLite). [0] https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/ormlite-apis#query-examples https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/ormlite-apis#query-exa...
- partly_cloudy 4y ago
  "95% of the time I can just use the ORM to make simple queries in a easy to maintain way for your application. For the 5% of queries that are either complex or can't be easily represented via your ORM of choice, declare the expected type response and use that escape hatch to write your performant SQL." site creator here - yeah this is the approach i'm taking now. the ORM is useful for sure and there's still a benefit to using it, but anything that needs to read from a few different tables, i'm definitely going with raw SQL
brycelarkin 4y ago
I felt the same way until I found sqlx (https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx). The package lets you write sql in your app with compile-time checks. Was so much easier to get up and running than learning a new ORM.
- carom 4y ago
  Need this for Go. Been considering writing a static checker for ages.
watwut 4y ago
Yeah, I am old enough to have started back when ORM did not existed yet. World with actual tested ORM is way more maintennable, waaay more easy to deal with. You can write your own queries when you really need to ... but should do it only when you really really need to. Writing queries is easy part. Maintaining that thing is the hard part.
dahwolf 4y ago
I'm wired differently. Even if I'd run a database operation just on a local machine and it takes 100x more load than an optimized SQL query, I still care. It's craftsmanship. Sounds like you may have a case of the abstraction disease. You keep reaching for abstractions that never accomplish the actual benefits of a truly solid abstraction.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

layoric 4y ago

I am the same, the advice of "learn SQL" is still very important. Most ORMs have the escape hatch of just mapping results of a straight SQL query to an expected structure (thinking of typed languages like C#/Java here). 95% of the time I can just use the ORM to make simple queries in a easy to maintain way for your application. For the 5% of queries that are either complex or can't be easily represented via your ORM of choice, declare the expected type response and use that escape hatch to write your performant SQL. I've been on projects where the team has re-invented an ORM organically, and I've never seen it go well. Likewise with projects that are ORM 'purest', bending themselves over backwards to use an ORM for a query that can't easily be represented by whatever query syntax it has. This is why I still think 'lite' weight ORMs are the best of both worlds since they usually have a pretty good experience for common/easy queries but then when things get tricky, it is best to just use SQL and map to an app language data structure for the results. I mostly use OrmLite [0] in dotnet and have found it has a balance that done well by me for years (note I now work at ServiceStack who built OrmLite). [0] https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/ormlite-apis#query-examples https://docs.servicestack.net/ormlite/ormlite-apis#query-exa...

partly_cloudy 4y ago
"95% of the time I can just use the ORM to make simple queries in a easy to maintain way for your application. For the 5% of queries that are either complex or can't be easily represented via your ORM of choice, declare the expected type response and use that escape hatch to write your performant SQL." site creator here - yeah this is the approach i'm taking now. the ORM is useful for sure and there's still a benefit to using it, but anything that needs to read from a few different tables, i'm definitely going with raw SQL

brycelarkin 4y ago

I felt the same way until I found sqlx (https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx https://github.com/launchbadge/sqlx). The package lets you write sql in your app with compile-time checks. Was so much easier to get up and running than learning a new ORM.

carom 4y ago
Need this for Go. Been considering writing a static checker for ages.

watwut 4y ago

Yeah, I am old enough to have started back when ORM did not existed yet. World with actual tested ORM is way more maintennable, waaay more easy to deal with. You can write your own queries when you really need to ... but should do it only when you really really need to. Writing queries is easy part. Maintaining that thing is the hard part.

dahwolf 4y ago

I'm wired differently. Even if I'd run a database operation just on a local machine and it takes 100x more load than an optimized SQL query, I still care. It's craftsmanship. Sounds like you may have a case of the abstraction disease. You keep reaching for abstractions that never accomplish the actual benefits of a truly solid abstraction.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]