|
|
|
|
|
by mikea1
1055 days ago
|
|
> the pipelined nature of PRQL really maps much better to how people should think about queries I disagree. Database engines take SQL and transform it into an execution plan that takes into consideration database metadata (size, storage, index analytics, etc.). Queries should be thought of with a _set based_ instead of _procedural_ approach to maximize the benefits of this abstraction - diving into the implementation details to guide the execution plan formation only when necessary. Also, the pipeline approach could be achieved with common table expressions (CTEs), right? That said, I think PRQL looks promising because it is a solid attempt to make RDBMS development more approachable. I also like that `from` comes before `select`: it is far more readable. A solid and modern IDE experience for PRQL could be a "killer app". |
|
So let me write it procedurally and have the optimization engine fix it for me, just like how it fixes my SQL.
Even SQL queries are often better understood procedurally. Take this one [1]:
That inner WHERE clause doesn't make sense in my opinion, unless you think of it procedurally as for each row in s1, ask do a search for the highest price amongst all items that share article number.[1] https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0/en/example-maximum-colu...