[Discuss] SQL discussion

[markw at mohawksoft.com]

> On 1/13/2015 8:08 AM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:
>> I'm a software engineer and I am constantly confounded by other
>> engineer's
>> trepidation/apprehension/dislike for the common database. SQL databases
>> especially.
>
> This statement of yours is a lot of it. There ain't no such thing as a
> SQL database yet people like you who should know better talk and write
> like they're real things. Those who don't know better are lead down the
> path of equating SQL with 800 pound gorilla database systems. They look
> at NoSQL/NoREL databases as alternatives because they need neither the
> bulk nor the expense of big RDBMS.
>
> The rest of us just roll our eyes.

Semantic arguments over canonically understood terms is not a good start.
When one says "a SQL database," everyone knows what is being discussed.
The argument that follows such a rhetorical instrument is usually just as
pointless.

>
> 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.

> SQL is very good at this but it can be used
> with pretty much any underlying database technology. As I've noted
> before, most non-relational database vendors provide SQL bindings for
> their systems.

Yup, no argument.
>
> On the other foot, SQL is absolutely terrible for queries against
> unstructured and multi-dimensional data.

LOL, *everything* else is just as bad.

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

Why?

> 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?

Rhetorical nonsense. Assertions without explanations.
>
> --
> Rich P.
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>