ErwinSmout

10 ms·

31.
by ErwinSmout 4y ago
And if you're set on building an "entire DB engine" then you can just as well go the full mile and go for relational. As opposed to SQL.
32.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
You have explained everything about what kind of environment it requires to run in and what kind of tools you used to build it, but you have not said a single word about business purpose or WHAT IT DOES FOR IT USERS .
33.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Not true. Since the addition of SQL/PSM (1996 IIRC) it has become a computationally complete language (procedural like many of the others) with variables and loops and what have you.
34.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Any declarative language that does not commit the violations of the relational model that SQL does commit. Date&Darwen formally pinned down what such a language has to look like in their three subsequent editions of "the third mani
35.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
No SQL is not a relational language. Which is precisely why "better" is both possible and desirable. And which is also why either of forward and backward "compatibility", to the fullest 100% extent, is intrinsically an
36.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
You can test that for yourself. Go through the three language-related sections on my site and decide for yourself how many hours you'd need to "waste" before you would "get it". And as for "waste" : if wh
37.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Integrating EXPLAINs in your build/deploy process should, in principle, make it possible for anyone to address any concern in such realms. The DBA you were mentioning here, e.g., could first do a query in the EXPLAIN results, and he&#x
38.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Interoperability is achieved if the same query with the same inputs yields the same result. "In the same amount of time" (which is the part that indexes are aimed at) is manifestly not part of that picture, and that's
39.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Your concerns are warranted. However. You are wrong tying the problem to joins. I remember an analyst who launched a SELECT COUNT because he was just curious about the number of rows in the table. No joins involved but users did suffer.
40.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
You even don't have to "imagine" it anymore, it already exists. See the projects list at http://www.thethirdmanifesto.com . The crux is : it takes much much more to achieve that than what the average C# or java c
41.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Where you start to go wrong is where your talk starts to be of "YOUR" schema. The schema isn't yours, it's the company's. And guarding it is the DBA's job. (I understand full well that that is a problem if th
42.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Because the 'servers' in existence speak only one language and it is that problematic one we want and need to get rid of. Your 'transpile' handwaving won't fly. You are blindly presuming that the 'SQL equivale
43.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
The particular meaning of "better" here was "better at representing the relational model". If you want to believe that popularity is a measure or reliable indicator of quality, I can't be bothered with you. PS I hav
44.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
SQL has nothing to say about the layer of physical implementation, and that's where INDEX belongs (as does STOGROUP [DB2] and what have you). That's not a bug, that's a feature. Deriving from the deliberate intent to m
45.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
I think the historical truth is that Oracle was first to market, and IBM just adopted SQL so it would not risk being waaaaaaaaay too late to the market "party". [Darwen, "Why are there no relational DBMS's"]
46.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Better things have come up. See the projects list at http://www.thethirdmanifesto.com/ .
47.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
SQL is too broken to even try fixing.
48.
by ErwinSmout 7y ago
Almost anything written by Date and/or Darwen during the last 30 years is stock full of arguments and proofs that SQL is a horrendously poor language. pls don't come complaining that all of those arguments are not replicated here
49.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
4 decades ago, mate. 4 DECADES AGO. Relational replaced graph 4 decades ago because graph lacked all that functionality 4 decades ago. And that it took 4 decades for graph to merely level up (and mostly by mocking relational-ish behaviou
50.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Procedural and navigational data manipulation with graph, declarative with SQL. Views in SQL, no equivalent of them in graph. It should not even take half a brain to understand why [pseudo-]relational replaced and obsoleted graph 4 decades
51.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
If you wanted that to be a real argument then you should have done the maths yourself . Without those maths you are doing nothing but gratuitious handwaving. I've done them for you and they prove me right (and you wrong at least w
52.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Well FWIW the real theorists would be utterly offended if they knew I was being put in the same league as they. The way I see it there are practitioners who care about theory (and take the bother to try and understand some of it, and even m
53.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
But the demeaning ridicule that gets thrown at me is ? (BTW I doubt very much that "Codd designed null into the RM". Even his 12 rules mention only "a systemic way to deal with missing information", not "null"
54.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
That "improved SQL" was already defined in the previous century, and has been implemented as well. Your ignorance drips off of every word you write.
55.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Great. Now if you can explain to me where you got the idea that a join (inner or otherwise) is the only possible way to query two tables then we might get somewhere. Because you can also just do two queries. And no, that does not neces
56.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Well guess what. Your "sense" of what "should" be in them has no place in computer SCIENCE . Computer SCIENCE is that ugly thing that tells us that three-valued logic gives rise to 19683 distinct binary logical opera
57.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Sigh. Where have I said any such thing ?
58.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Truly relational systems support relation-valued attributes and those are the perfect means to support Optional<anything> in a database.
59.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
Yeah and the results are so massively intuitive.
60.
by ErwinSmout 8y ago
What do I get ? You get what you ask for. Then I ... what ? Then you do what needs to be done as specified by the business in the case the queried piece of information is unknown.

More ›