4 ms·
We built LLM-to-SQL before this at RunReveal, and while it's useful and gets queries mostly correct 80% of the time, 20% of the time it's way off or requires no
by caust1c 3y ago
We built LLM-to-SQL before this at RunReveal, and while it's useful and gets queries mostly correct 80% of the time, 20% of the time it's way off or requires nontrivial manual intervention.
We're still fairly bullish on the LLM-to-SQL front though, but in the meantime PQL is a good bridge.
- munk-a 3y agoAs a company that's invested into this. Would you mind talking as to why you don't want to use raw SQL - are there particular deficiencies you've found in it?
- jodrellblank 3y agoHere is a long blogpost "against SQL" which lists many deficiencies of it: https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/against-sql/ https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/against-sql/ In short, it has a longer spec than famously-complex C++ while making a much less expressive language out of it.
- ejcx 3y agoWe do use raw sql, but we're a security business which tends to have heavy reliance on other languages that have a similar syntax to pql
- __mharrison__ 3y agoSee tools like pandas and Polars. These database libraries are abstractions that give you a spray of SQL functionality. I prefer using these libraries because it feels much more intuitive (and works with the Python/arrow ecosystem). (I'm also biased since I make a portion of my living off of pandas training material.)