RE: SQL Syntax

> From: rob@dekko.com
>
> Yet some, (not necessarily you) would have the belief that we should not
> try to teach people new stuff.  Instead we should dumb down our code to
> the lowest common denominator.

Actually, my concern is that SQL is in itself contributing to the "dumbing
down" of the programmer pool.  Instead of taking the time to determine the
best way to design a database and identifying which fields to "strategically
denormalize" and so on, we instead have the concept of multiple-file JOINs
whenever we need bits of data.  Programmers no longer worry about the
access, they simply can write a FETCH whenever they need something.  In my
era, our database design was dictated by its use, and if we has to access
data in a new way, we put on a new logical.  If we had a lot of logicals, we
tried to determine why and perhaps come up with a different design.  (The
item transaction history file being one of the ugliest exceptions.)

Today, database design is a moot point, because you can always write a more
complex SQL statement to access the data.


> I am curious, do you think that SQL should build indexes, (logical files),
> on the fly and leave them there?

Nope.  What I'd like to see is a more intelligent way to generate SQL
syntax.  I'd like to see an application request wizard that generated the
best possible SQL syntax for a request.  This wizard could and also generate
the native I/O for the same thing, and allow us to choose between the
implementations.

Wouldn't THAT be a nice piece of software?

Joe