2 ms·

> Joins are not a "hack," they are an integral part of the relational model. Yes, joins are an essential part of the relational model, but we're clearly not ta

> Joins are not a "hack," they are an integral part of the relational model. Yes, joins are an essential part of the relational model, but we're clearly not talking about the relational model. The n+1 problem rears its ugly head when you don't have a relational model – when you have a tree-like model instead. > The included query in the gist returns all available information about the albums present in a single query. No n+1. No n+1, but then you're stuck with tables/relations, which are decidedly not in a tree-like shape. You can move database logic into your application to turn tables into trees, but then you have a whole lot of extra complexity to contend with. Needlessly so in the typical case since you can just use SQLite instead... Unless you have a really strong case otherwise, it's best to leave database work for databases. After all, if you want your application to do the database work, what do you need SQLite or Postgres for? Of course, as always, tradeoffs have to be made. Sometimes it is better to put database logic in your application to make gains elsewhere. But for the typical greenfield application that hasn't even proven that users want to use it yet, added complexity in the application layer is probably not a good trade. At least not in the typical case.

sgarland 3y ago
n+1 can show up any time you have poorly modeled schema or queries. It’s quite possible to have a relational model that is sub-optimal; reference the fact that there are 5 levels of normalization (plus a couple extra) before you get into absurdity. I still would like to know how SQLite does not suffer from the same problems as any other RDBMS. Do you have an example schema?
- randomdata 3y ago
  > I still would like to know how SQLite does not suffer from the same problems as any other RDBMS. That's simple: Not being an RDMBS, only an engine, is how it avoids the suffering. The n+1 problem is the result of slow execution. Of course, an idealize database has no time constraints, but the real world is not so kind. While SQLite has not figured out how to defy the laws of physics, it is able to reduce the time to run a query to imperceptible levels under typical usage by embedding itself in the application. Each query is just a function call, which are fast. Postgres' engine can be just as fast, but because it hides the engine behind the system layer, you don't interact with the engine directly. That means you need to resort to hacks to try and poke at the engine where the system tries to stand in the way. The hacks work... but at the cost of more complexity in the application.
  - dventimi 3y ago
    Compare and contrast the query execution stages of PostgreSQL and SQLite. How exactly do they work? Please be as precise as possible. Try to avoid imprecise terms like "simple", "suffering", "system layer", and "hack."
    - randomdata 3y ago
      For what purpose? I can find no source of value in your request.
      - dventimi 3y ago
        To educate your adoring fans
        randomdata 3y ago
        But for what purpose? There is no value in educating adoring fans.
      - sgarland 3y ago
        To prove that you have an inkling about the subject you have wandered into. Engineers and Scientists do that; they don’t hide behind airy and vague language – that is the realm of conmen. You stated that you cannot implement a tree-like structure with tables, so I set about proving you wrong, and posted a gist that does so. Until you can back up your claims with data, your words are meaningless, and no one here is going to take you seriously.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        randomdata 3y ago
        Prove to who? You? Engineers and scientists are paid professionals. They are financially incentivized to help other people. Maybe you somehow managed to not notice, but I am but a person on an Internet forum. There is no incentive offered for me to do anything for anyone else. To have the gall to even ask for me to work for you without any compensation in kind is astounding. Of what difference does it make if anyone takes me seriously or not? That's the most meaningless attribute imaginable. Oh noes, a random nobody on the internet doesn't believe me! It's the end of the world as we know it... How droll. Perhaps it is that you do not understand what value means? Or how did you manage to write all those words and not come up with any suggestion of value whatsoever?

sgarland 3y ago

n+1 can show up any time you have poorly modeled schema or queries. It’s quite possible to have a relational model that is sub-optimal; reference the fact that there are 5 levels of normalization (plus a couple extra) before you get into absurdity. I still would like to know how SQLite does not suffer from the same problems as any other RDBMS. Do you have an example schema?

randomdata 3y ago
> I still would like to know how SQLite does not suffer from the same problems as any other RDBMS. That's simple: Not being an RDMBS, only an engine, is how it avoids the suffering. The n+1 problem is the result of slow execution. Of course, an idealize database has no time constraints, but the real world is not so kind. While SQLite has not figured out how to defy the laws of physics, it is able to reduce the time to run a query to imperceptible levels under typical usage by embedding itself in the application. Each query is just a function call, which are fast. Postgres' engine can be just as fast, but because it hides the engine behind the system layer, you don't interact with the engine directly. That means you need to resort to hacks to try and poke at the engine where the system tries to stand in the way. The hacks work... but at the cost of more complexity in the application.
- dventimi 3y ago
  Compare and contrast the query execution stages of PostgreSQL and SQLite. How exactly do they work? Please be as precise as possible. Try to avoid imprecise terms like "simple", "suffering", "system layer", and "hack."
  - randomdata 3y ago
    For what purpose? I can find no source of value in your request.
    - dventimi 3y ago
      To educate your adoring fans
      - randomdata 3y ago
        But for what purpose? There is no value in educating adoring fans.
    - sgarland 3y ago
      To prove that you have an inkling about the subject you have wandered into. Engineers and Scientists do that; they don’t hide behind airy and vague language – that is the realm of conmen. You stated that you cannot implement a tree-like structure with tables, so I set about proving you wrong, and posted a gist that does so. Until you can back up your claims with data, your words are meaningless, and no one here is going to take you seriously.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - randomdata 3y ago
        Prove to who? You? Engineers and scientists are paid professionals. They are financially incentivized to help other people. Maybe you somehow managed to not notice, but I am but a person on an Internet forum. There is no incentive offered for me to do anything for anyone else. To have the gall to even ask for me to work for you without any compensation in kind is astounding. Of what difference does it make if anyone takes me seriously or not? That's the most meaningless attribute imaginable. Oh noes, a random nobody on the internet doesn't believe me! It's the end of the world as we know it... How droll. Perhaps it is that you do not understand what value means? Or how did you manage to write all those words and not come up with any suggestion of value whatsoever?