[eleclady]

I used to think this too, and wondered what magical SQL perspective my brain was missing. I'd see these elegant but seemingly impenetrable queries and wonder why my brain wasn't in the "SQL dimension" yet.

But over time, and very heavy SQL reporting, I realized the procedural mindset still applies, it's just not expressed as such.

You need to think through the steps of how you want to retrieve, transform, aggregate etc. the data and build up the query to accomplish those steps. The resulting query doesn't look procedural, but the thought process was. Of course you need to know the sometimes opaque constructs/tricks/syntax to express the steps, which again, look like magic at face value or just reading docs.

I think this is why people struggle with understanding SQL. The thought process is still procedural, but the query isn't. You need to translate the query back into procedural terms for your own understanding, which is a PITA.

[kumarvvr]

To me trying to emulate procedural stuff in SQL feels wrong, especially with multi-table queries.

[eleclady]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. The difficulty people have is that the thought process (solution) is still procedural but the query is expressed declaratively. Once you learn how to navigate that gap you get good at SQL.