Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 23, 2009 18:51 UTC (Mon) by KGranade (guest, #56052)
In reply to: Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show" by Wol
Parent article: Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

First, as has been mentioned already, the data he's proposing accessing with SQL IS mostly (or totally, not sure) flat tables ( log files, /proc, tables of installed packages, sounds like flat tables to me ).

Secondly, you recommend using something like English, but I have no idea how the examples you present would be used, which means learning a specialized syntax, which means I might as well use a generalized syntax that is a moderately straightforward mapping of the concepts of database retrieval to English... which is a decent description of SQL.

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 24, 2009 0:21 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (5 responses)

:-)

Sorry, but I did *not* say "use English". I said "use ENGLISH" (ENGLISH being a dedicated data access language).

ENGLISH is the original Pick data query language, and is a very good NFNF query tool (It's also called ENGLISH because it is, actually, very similar to English!) For example

SELECT INVOICE WITH INVOICE.TOTAL EQ 1600 AND WHERE LINE.ITEM EQ 215

will select all invoices where the invoice value is 1600 and any individual line is 215.

SQL is *not* a "moderately straightforward mapping of the concepts of database retrieval to English" - no way would I describe it as "moderately straightforward", and it is very relational-oriented. Using it to query a non-relational database is *horrid*.

Cheers,
Wol

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 24, 2009 0:44 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, is it incorrect to interpret log files relationally?

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 24, 2009 15:51 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

Log files are typically two-dimensional :-)

So yes, SQL is probably a good language for querying them. But then, so is ENGLISH, because it's n-dimensional (actually, it doesn't work that well if n hits 4 or more :-( so horses for courses, I'd use ENGLISH because that's what I'm comfortable with.

Cheers,
Wol

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 24, 2009 16:24 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] (2 responses)

That's fine, but who typically knows ENGLISH these days? SQL is far more common.

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 26, 2009 14:06 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (1 responses)

You'd be surprised ...

IBM are on record as saying that their version (the U2 databases) is the fastest growing product in their database VAR sales.

And International Spectrum is holding their conference right now - against a background of collapsing conference attendances (typically down 25 - 50 %), they're holding their own - I think they were down 7% (or was it up?)

imho relational *theory* is great. Unfortunately, relational practice falls foul of Einstein's corollary to Occam - practice is TOO simple, therefore system complexity (as in all the stuff *round* the database) rises sharply as a result. SQL queries are a classic example :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Malcolm: SQL for the command line: "show"

Posted Mar 28, 2009 0:55 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

SQL extensions are an even more classic example. Look at MODEL, for
instance. In case the relational model is 'too hard', now you can turn
your DB into a tiny spreadsheet and bash at it in the query. How
relational...

(actually it *is* useful, but that doesn't mean it's not totally bizarre
and screwy. The real problem here is SQL's halfassed incapable
implementation of half the relational calculus in a non-Turing-complete
fashion. But it paid for my house so I can't complain *too* terribly
hard.)