Looks pretty awesome. Avoiding ORMs that assume a chatty connection make pragmatic sense, and they note the code complexity trade-off of having to explicitly f

Looks pretty awesome. Avoiding ORMs that assume a chatty connection make pragmatic sense, and they note the code complexity trade-off of having to explicitly fetch the data up-front. I like that they basically added aggregates to the SQL schema, I'd been hoping a RDBMS would come out with that feature as a way to transparently handle sharding. I'm pleasantly surprised they allow (AFAICT) transactions/joins across aggregates, albeit with 2PC. I would have been just fine accepting transactions/joins only within aggregates, as even if the application code has to handle coordination across aggregates in an eventually consistent manner, as long as each aggregate itself is consistent, I think programmers can still easily deal with/reason about that sort of model. If I were a VC, I'd give $40 million to a company building this product over MongoDB. Enterprises (who spend money on licenses/support much more than startups do) historically want features like schemas and transactions (i.e. there is a reason relational databases have been popular for so long).