Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
simonwillison.net
Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
1–10 of 192 posts
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#2Title should probably be changed, since the article is about using AI to convert a PDF to semantic HTML.
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#3Title should probably be changed, since the article is about using AI to convert a PDF to semantic HTML.
[deleted]
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#4The research paper: https://storage.googleapis.com/gweb-research2023-media/pubto...
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#5Previous submissions on the paper itself:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41321876 (first) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338877 (plenty of discussions)
I tried this new syntax and this seems a reasonable proposal for complex analytical queries. This new syntax probably does not change most simple transactional queries though. The syntax matches the execution semantic more closely, which means you less likely need to formulate query in a weird form to make query planner work as expected; usually users only need to move some pipe operators to more appropriate places.
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#6Richard Hipp, creator of SQLite, has implemented this in an experimental branch: https://sqlite.org/forum/forumpost/5f218012b6e1a9db
Worth reading the thread, there are some good insights. It looks like he will be waiting on Postgres to take the initiative on implementing this before it makes it into a release.
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#7Previous submissions on the paper itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41321876 (first) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338877 (plenty of discussions) I tried this new syntax and this seems a reasonable proposal for complex analytical queries. This new syntax probably does not change most simple transactional queries though. The syntax matches the execution semantic more closely, which means you less l…
There was a second submission of the paper, which attracted more comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338877
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#8Previous submissions on the paper itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41321876 (first) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338877 (plenty of discussions) I tried this new syntax and this seems a reasonable proposal for complex analytical queries. This new syntax probably does not change most simple transactional queries though. The syntax matches the execution semantic more closely, which means you less l…
There was a second submission of the paper, which attracted more comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41338877
Thank you, added it to my comment. I missed all the discussions!
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#9Title should probably be changed, since the article is about using AI to convert a PDF to semantic HTML.
A surprising problem I'm seeing with maintaining a link blog is that articles from it occasionally get submitted to Hacker News, where people inevitably call them out as not being as appropriate as the source they are linking to - which is fair enough! That's why I don't tend to submit them myself.
This particular post quickly turned into a very thinly veiled excuse for me to complain about PDFs, then demonstrate a Gemini Pro trick.
In this case I converted to HTML - I've since tried converting a paper to Markdown and sharing in a Gist, which I think worked even better: https://gist.github.com/simonw/46a33d66e069efe5c10b63625fdab... - notes here https://simonwillison.net/2024/Aug/27/distro/
Re: Google's new pipe syntax in SQL
#10I actually work on SQL Server, but I also write a lot of KQL queries which also work this way and I totally agree that the sequential pipe stuff is easier to write. I haven't read through the whole paper, but one aspect that I really like is that I think it's easier to guide the query optimization in this sequential style.