2 ms·
> Throwing out SQL is not really the recipe for "performance" We've discovered hacks to work around the limitations of SQL, so you can maintain performance wit
by 9rx 1y ago
> Throwing out SQL is not really the recipe for "performance"
We've discovered hacks to work around the limitations of SQL, so you can maintain performance with sufficient hackiness, but you have to give up "purity" to get there. Worse is better applies, I suppose, but if we were starting over today the design would be very different.
Throwing out SQL isn't strictly required, but like Rust isn't strictly required when you already have C, sometimes it is nice to take a step back and look at how you can improve upon things. Unfortunately, NoSQL turning into a story about "document databases" instead of "A better SQL" killed any momentum on that front.
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoNo, I'm arguing in fact the opposite and you'll have to prove the point wrong instead of drive-by insisting on this. The point of Codd's original paper was to separate concerns about data storage from its representation and to propose an elegant representational & transformation & query model based on first order logic and I believe he succeeded. SQL was the first serious attempt to translate this into a working system, and it's full of warts, but the underlying model it is reaching towards retains its elegance. But most importantly the principle of not tying the structure of data to its storage model is absolutely key. Not least because we can iteratively and flexibly improve the storage model over time, and not be stuck with decisions that tie us to one particular structure which is the problem that 1960s "network" and "hierarchical" databases (and modern day "key value" or "NoSQL" databases) cause.
- 9rx 1y agoThe opposite of what? There is no contention with Codd's original paper. I'd suggest that Codd's Alpha paper was lacking in the same way SQL struggles, but that's a bit orthogonal to what you seem to be trying to say. I know its a bit confusing as SQL tries to name many different, independent things with the same name, but when confused it is best to become unconfused, not go off to la-la land.
- cmrdporcupine 1y agoNotably, you edited your comment after my reply :-)
- 9rx 1y agoStrangly off-topic, but if that's where you want to go, what's notable about that? Given the confusion, there should have been no rush to reply before some minor adjustments were made. That is how you ended up here in the first place. Understand first, the consider replying.