5 ms·
This is true, SQL does not require everything to be a set, strictly speaking, but internally many platforms append a unique row identifier to bags, so that they
by pradocchia 17y ago
This is true, SQL does not require everything to be a set, strictly speaking, but internally many platforms append a unique row identifier to bags, so that they can be processed as sets.
I often wish platforms would expose their internal calculus in a separate syntax, so we wouldn't have to work through the SQL translation layer. Algebraic operators would be nice too.
- leandrod 17y agoÐat may be true, but what platforms do internally ſhould not affect ðeir flavours of SQL. In oðer words, internal implementation as ſets do not make SQL ſet‐baſed.
- pradocchia 17y agoNo argument there (ðere?), SQL is an unfortunate language.
- cturner 17y agoDo you have any thoughts about why there has been no challenge to the SQL syntax? We can easily imagine notations based on relational algebra and relational calculus emerging that could be interpreted at the same levels of an RDBMS as SQL, yet I've not seen anyone attempt it. A good PhD topic for someone?
- encoderer 17y agoSQL was designed to make data accessible to non-programmers. That's why it lacks more advanced/obscure syntax. And the reason why it's stuck is the same story that you can tell over and over about standards.
- shaunxcode 17y agoAPL? (seriously)