sql is great but i am still waiting for the succesor to sql. sql was made for relational data. but a relational data with nested data structure kind of like postgres and jsonb built in mind from the ground up is what id really like to see.
You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
11–20 of 87 posts
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#12What was the Twitter thread/HN thread referenced about using "boring" approaches to solving problems?
Also, more of the same: "Choose Boring Technology (2015)": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9291215
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#13When you already know the query logic or the logic is easy to derive - use SQL if you can. For more complex stuff ML may work as your rule derivation mechanism.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#14But you don't gain ML/AI know-how by doing SQL, nor you discover previously unknown potential about your product buy sticking to your usual toolset. Not that I necessarily disagree with the OP but I find it deeply uninspirational. What's the difference between using ML/AI for problems traditionally solved by some other tool and using any other tool to solve the same problem unconventionally? Both can be "hacking". I…
A correct machine learning solution for a non-trivial problem is very likely to have higher complexity than a traditional approach known to work. For a toy or hobby problem, all's fair, but for a business application the added complexity can have significant impact on cost, time to market, etc.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#15Maybe I'm niave, but are there really people who want to hop on the AI bandwagon just to do mundane lookups like this? When I worked with machine learning many years ago, we learned that it was no better than the heuristics already in place. The thing is, it's much easier to diagnose a well written and understood heuristic than a machine learning model.
Yes.
A few years ago I was called into save a dying project. They had built some big Hadoop cluster, had consultants on site, etc.
End of the day, they were doing something similar to assessing fines on library books. I wrote a prototype in about 3 hours.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#16Maybe I'm niave, but are there really people who want to hop on the AI bandwagon just to do mundane lookups like this? When I worked with machine learning many years ago, we learned that it was no better than the heuristics already in place. The thing is, it's much easier to diagnose a well written and understood heuristic than a machine learning model.
Yes, the hype is strong and people want to stick ML or Data Science on their resume. They'll try to do anything that seems like it might touch statistics with ML first and not even consider whether it's necessary.
Kafka, Kubernetes, and things like Spark and machine learning are basically the next stage of the "data is King" hype cycle that Hadoop was a few years ago.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#17But you don't gain ML/AI know-how by doing SQL, nor you discover previously unknown potential about your product buy sticking to your usual toolset. Not that I necessarily disagree with the OP but I find it deeply uninspirational. What's the difference between using ML/AI for problems traditionally solved by some other tool and using any other tool to solve the same problem unconventionally? Both can be "hacking". I…
A correct machine learning solution for a non-trivial problem is very likely to have higher complexity than a traditional approach known to work. For a toy or hobby problem, all's fair, but for a business application the added complexity can have significant impact on cost, time to market, etc.
Well, I know I don't need to install GPUs on servers I install Postgres on, so there's that cost.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#18I like this article's focus on technology as a way of helping skilled people do their job more effectively. Why shouldn't a business owner be able to use Bash and SQL to run their business? Maybe the solution isn't new technology, but training people to use the old stuff.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#19sql is great but i am still waiting for the succesor to sql. sql was made for relational data. but a relational data with nested data structure kind of like postgres and jsonb built in mind from the ground up is what id really like to see.
Why? What problem do they solve that RE can't, other than putting the "consuming service" data structure into the database, instead of putting the data into the database and selecting appropriately? I've not seen a good justification for these things yet, other than "convenience" so the client "needs less code to structure the data", which is almost always a false saving.
Re: You don't need ML/AI, you need SQL
#20Turns out that people are actually kinda smart - toss in some raw cycles to handle the mind-numbing bits and you can have a solid system that does smart things en masse.