61–70 of 140 posts
I'm not saying this is better than your solution, just curious :^)
> But SQL schemas often look like this. Columns are nullable by default, and wide tables are common. Hard disagree. That database table was a waving red flag. I don't know enough/any rust so don't really understand the rest of the article but I have never in my life worked with a database table that had 700 columns. Or even 100.
Exactly this.
This article is not about structs or Rust. This article is about poor design of the whole persistence layer. I mean, hundreds of columns? Almost all of them optional? This is the kind of design that gets candidates to junior engineer positions kicked off a hiring round.
Nobody gets fired for using a struct? If it's an organization that tolerates database tables with nearly 1k optional rows then that comes at no surprise.
I feel like I'm missing something, but the article started by talking about SQL tables, and then in-memory representations, and then on-disk representation, but...isn't storing it on a disk already what a SQL database is doing? It sounds like data is being read from a disk into memory in one format and then written back to a disk (maybe a different one?) in another format, and the second format was not as efficient a…
Feel free to try it out, it's open source: https://github.com/feldera/feldera/
> But SQL schemas often look like this. Columns are nullable by default, and wide tables are common. Hard disagree. That database table was a waving red flag. I don't know enough/any rust so don't really understand the rest of the article but I have never in my life worked with a database table that had 700 columns. Or even 100.
https://jimmyhmiller.com/ugliest-beautiful-codebase
I think this company was ahead of the curve.
> But SQL schemas often look like this. Columns are nullable by default, and wide tables are common. Hard disagree. That database table was a waving red flag. I don't know enough/any rust so don't really understand the rest of the article but I have never in my life worked with a database table that had 700 columns. Or even 100.
https://jimmyhmiller.com/ugliest-beautiful-codebase
Take this passage:
> The app relied on a SOAP service, not to do any servicey things. No, the service was a pure function. It was the client that did all the side effects. In that client, I discovered a massive class hierarchy. 120 classes each with various methods, inheritance going 10 levels deep. The only problem? ALL THE METHODS WERE EMPTY. I do not exaggerate here. Not mostly empty. Empty.
> That one stumped me for a while. Eventually, I learned this was in service of building a structure he could then use reflection on. That reflection would let him create a pipe-delimited string (whose structure was completely database-driven, but entirely static) that he would send over a socket.
Classes with empty methods? Used reflection to create a pipe-delimited string? The string was sent over the wire?
Why congratulations, you just rediscovered data transfer objects, specifically API models.
Why is rust allowed to reorder fields? If I know that fields are going to be generally accessed together, this prevents me from ordering them so they fit in cache lines.
> But SQL schemas often look like this. Columns are nullable by default, and wide tables are common. Hard disagree. That database table was a waving red flag. I don't know enough/any rust so don't really understand the rest of the article but I have never in my life worked with a database table that had 700 columns. Or even 100.
Why is rust allowed to reorder fields? If I know that fields are going to be generally accessed together, this prevents me from ordering them so they fit in cache lines.
Strictly speaking, Isn't there still a way to express at least one Illegal string in ArchivedString? I'm not sure how to hint to the Rust compiler which values are illegal, but if the inline length (at most 15 characers) is aliased to the pointer string length (assume little-endian), wouldnt {ptr: null, len: 16} and {inline_data: {0...}, len: 16} both technically be an illegal value? I'm not saying this is better tha…
There may be good reasons (I don't know any) why it wasn't done like this, but from a high-level it looks possible to me too yes.