4 ms·
Love this. The problem I have with this approach, though, is SQL itself. Until we get simple things such as inserts and unions based on field name rather than f
by tacone 3y ago
Love this. The problem I have with this approach, though, is SQL itself. Until we get simple things such as inserts and unions based on field name rather than field order, there are simply too many pitfalls for me.
- Twisell 3y agoPlease elaborate because that sentence make barely no sense for modern SQL engine such as PostgreSQL. A good ressource to start exploring would be this site with compare features between vendors: https://modern-sql.com/ https://modern-sql.com/
- FridgeSeal 3y agoI believe what they’re talking about is being able to pass something like a struct of key-value pairs, which correspond to column names in the inserted table. This would let us pass straight records/maps/whatever you want to call them to the db, and have the correct insert performed, instead of the genuinely horrible string-interpolation-hope-you-got-the-right-number-of-params-in-the-right-order-and-too-bad-if-you-didn’t dance that we currently have. The interface we have with databases could be so much better.
- lovasoa 3y agoI think they were talking about syntax like INSERT INTO t(a,b,c) VALUES (1,2,3) I agree that something like INSERT INTO t VALUES a=1, b=2, c=3 would be much more readable.
- yrashk 3y agoInterestingly enough, I've toyed with augmenting SQL to make it more useful. I remember doing an experimental improvement allowing to do FROM where SELECT what syntax. I agree there's value there. Omnigres is able to intercept query expressions to do the augmentation.