Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#2Isn't his like it is in many relational databases, you can query them about the tables in them?
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#3[dead]
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#4Not clear if the author realises that all commercial SQL database engines support querying of the database's metadata using SQL. Or maybe I have misunderstood - I only skimmed the article.
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#5Not clear if the author realises that all commercial SQL database engines support querying of the database's metadata using SQL. Or maybe I have misunderstood - I only skimmed the article.
[deleted]
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#6Isn't his like it is in many relational databases, you can query them about the tables in them?
[deleted]
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#7[dead]
> which queries produced which rows
I doubt many real-world applications could tolerate the amount of data/performance degradation this implies. If you need this (and I can't think why you would), then I think writing your own logging code is the answer, rather than lumbering everyone else with it.
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#8Not clear if the author realises that all commercial SQL database engines support querying of the database's metadata using SQL. Or maybe I have misunderstood - I only skimmed the article.
Yeah, this seemed like a very long way to say, "Our RDBMS has system catalogs," as if it's 1987.
But then, they're also doing JOINs with the USING clause, which seems like one of those things that everybody tries... until they hit one of the several reasons not to use them, and then they go back to the ON clause which is explicit and concrete and works great in all cases.
Personally, I'd like to hear more about the claims made about Snowflake IDs.
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#9[dead]
That's quite expensive. Most systems that need this sort of data will instead implement some form of audit log or audit table. Which is still quite expensive.
At the record level, I've seldom seen more than an add timestamp, and add user id, a last change timestamp, and a last change user id. Even then, it covers any change to the whole row, not every field. It's still relatively expensive.
Re: Databases should contain their own Metadata – Use SQL Everywhere
#10Not clear if the author realises that all commercial SQL database engines support querying of the database's metadata using SQL. Or maybe I have misunderstood - I only skimmed the article.
Differently though, AFAIR PostgreSQL does most of the schema changes transactionally, but not MySQL.