Skip to content
loading...

re: Who owns the SQL standard? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: I am trying to add a language to query unstructured data. SQL is quite easy to implement and people are already familiar with SQL so I think it is ...
 

"SQL is quite easy to implement " no it isn't. In fact, SQL is "easy" because you express WHAT you need instead of HOW to get it. Creating the optimal access plan for a query is extremely difficult, and even the big ones (Oracle, SQL Server...) have problems with that. I recall older versions of Sybase when more than 5 tables in a join were prohibited (I guess for the combinatorial explosion of all the possible paths). And that just for querying. Updating and deleting with transactions keeping ACID properties is even harder. Good luck with that!

Maybe but my concern is more about legal aspects than technical.

Why not just call it something "QL" for "query language?" Hive, for example, is sorta-kinda-SQL-like in its commands, but calls their query language "HiveQL," I believe.

Salesforce has one that's also a corruption but kind of SQL-like that they call "SOQL" (Salesforce Object Query Language).

I say just add "QL" to your database branding so as not to confuse people.

code of conduct - report abuse