PRQL – A proposal for a better SQL

Re:PRQL – A proposal for a better SQL by quocanh on Monday January 24, 2022 @03:54PM (#30063887)

I agree that the columns of the results should be more obvious. But I am a proponent of "from should be first". I have never written a SQL query without thinking about the contents of a table or its relations. If it was my way, I would describe where the data I'm pulling from, then describe any filters/joins, then describe the columns that I'm interested in (last).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PRQL – A proposal for a better SQL by BeefWellington on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @02:15AM (#30069083)

You've never authored a SQL query that does things like check special functions that don't exist in a table?

For example:

    select @@version

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PRQL – A proposal for a better SQL by fragmede on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @02:30AM (#30069174)

Seems easy enough to work around with a magic table name in this hypothetical future reworked dialect of SQL?

    from @@special
    select version

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:PRQL – A proposal for a better SQL by tapas73 on Wednesday January 26, 2022 @01:23AM (#30082425)

    from dual
    select @@version

[ Parent | on HN ]