[Discuss] SQL discussion

[markw at mohawksoft.com (markw at mohawksoft.com)]

> On 1/13/2015 1:39 PM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
>
>>> 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.

Yes, the language structure was designed to facilitate relational data.
This is true, but that is the last yard so to speak. The original work
included representing data such that it could be relational. How to
represent types of data. Specifying the language and verbs on how to find
it, how to add data to the system, etc. It wasn't JUST relational.


-------

>>> 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.

That's like saying you can't represent 3 dimensions on a piece of paper.
It isn't true. The number of dimensions that are represented are defined
by the number of axis used. Correct? The next question is how do you want
to structure your data to represent 3 dimensions? 3D arrays? Tables? what?
If you want 4 dimensions, just one more axis.



>
>
>>> 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.

Why must you perform "multiple queries?" Its all how you choose to
structure your data and how you choose to query it.