7 ms·
This is mostly all true, but there is little incentive for RDBMS vendors to implement and maintain a second query language, in particular a shared cross-vendor
by layer8 1y ago
This is mostly all true, but there is little incentive for RDBMS vendors to implement and maintain a second query language, in particular a shared cross-vendor one. Databases are the most long-lived and costly-to-migrate dependencies in IT systems, so keeping the SQL-based interface in parallel for a long time would be mandatory. This is compounded by the standardized SQL-centric database driver APIs like ODBC and JDBC. Despite the shortcomings of SQL, there is no real killer feature that would trigger the required concerted change across the industry.
- andai 1y agoThe way I've heard this phrased is, for potential customers to justify switching to your solution, it can't be 10% better, it needs to be 10x better. (And on top of that they need to clearly perceive the value of Strange New Thing, and clearly perceive the relative lack of value of the thing they have been emotionally invested in for decades...)
- gavinray 1y ago> This is compounded by the standardized SQL-centric database driver APIs like ODBC and JDBC. The criticality of JDBC/ODBC as a platform can't be understated. The JDBC API is the dominant platform for data access libraries. Compare number of drivers for JDBC, ODBC, go/sql, etc. Newer platforms like Arrow ADBC/FlightSQL are better-suited to high-volume, OLAP style data queries we're seeing become commonplace today but the ecosystem and adoption haven't caught up. https://arrow.apache.org/adbc/current/index.html https://arrow.apache.org/adbc/current/index.html https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/FlightSql.html https://arrow.apache.org/docs/format/FlightSql.html
- HackerThemAll 1y agoThis is mostly all b.s.