91–100 of 147 posts
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
Can you give an example of what you mean, and what we'd gain from it?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example of what you mean, and what we'd gain from it?
When you're accessing a SQLite database in code you have to generate a query string. Parameters ameliorate that somewhat, but in many cases you still have to regenerate a new string for each new query. It's inefficient to translate your query into a string only to have it parsed back into something structured by SQLite.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you give an example of what you mean, and what we'd gain from it?
When you're accessing a SQLite database in code you have to generate a query string. Parameters ameliorate that somewhat, but in many cases you still have to regenerate a new string for each new query. It's inefficient to translate your query into a string only to have it parsed back into something structured by SQLite.
Or a specific one for SQLite?
I'd be very surprised if generating the SQL query string and parsing it again was more than a trivial percentage of the query execution time, but happy to be proven wrong.
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
Why not?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
The same reason language servers took off. Instead of one to one mapping, SQL enables one to many mapping with minor tweaks, allowing everyone to do whatever they want over a well known, well defined, mature abstraction.
In the same spirit, I may ask why we're not writing assembly or even machine code, and we have programming languages? Testers, sure, abstraction means clarity up to an extent, but why the developers themselves still use programming languages?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
I mean, I get it but the chances that it makes a noticeable difference are zero in almost every case. Also you'd have to change a lot of the existing tooling, at which point you might as well send a compiled agent or use stored procs?
After seeing one diagram: Why the hack are we still talking to databases with SQL strings and not directly specifying the Query-AST? Admins, sure (a fancy UI could help there as well) but why in our code?
Caching the query plan is also going to go further in performance optimisations than just “precompiling” the SQL to a AST.