[Discuss] SQL discussion

[Richard Pieri]

On 1/13/2015 1:39 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
> Semantic arguments over canonically understood terms is not a good start.
> When one says "a SQL database," everyone knows what is being discussed.

The only time that I've ever seen "a SQL database" having a "canonically 
understood" meaning is in regards to specific instances of Microsoft SQL 
Server databases. Then again, the fact that we're even having this 
argument suggests that when one says "a SQL database," /not/ everyone 
knows what is being discussed.


>> SQL is a database interface language. It was designed specifically for
>> use with relational tables.
>
> That is part of it, true, but not all of it.

No, that's the entirety of it: SQL was developed specifically for use 
with relational data. Period. You can argue that it's not but if you're 
going to do that then I suggest taking it up with the guys at IBM who 
designed it.


>> On the other foot, SQL is absolutely terrible for queries against
>> unstructured and multi-dimensional data.
>
> LOL, *everything* else is just as bad.

The proliferation of post-relational databases in high-profile 
applications suggests that this is merely your opinion. By 
"high-profile" I mean the likes of Ameritrade and Kaiser Permanente. I 
list these two because I had a very, very, very indirect hand in their 
deployments.


>> It's difficult to implement
>> queries against these kinds of data with SQL.
>
> Why?

Because SQL is built on two dimensional algebra. Two dimensional math 
cannot easily encompass three or more dimensions.


>> Such queries are much more
>> complex in SQL than their native equivalents and they are much slower as
>> a direct consequence of this complexity.
>
> Why?

With SQL you perform multiple queries and figure out how to combine the 
results. With a native multi-dimensional query you perform one query and 
receive one result.


> Rhetorical nonsense. Assertions without explanations.

No, it's just you being hide-bound in re. SQL and relational databases.

Hm. I seem to recall something... wasn't it one of your posts that I 
replied with a quip to the effect that when all you have is a RDBMS then 
every problem looks like a table?

-- 
Rich P.