Re: Unknown SQL

(removed comp.lang.java.programmer from recipients because of complaints)

Joe Cosby wrote:
> >Yes, this is probably very true. Thinking in SQL compares to thinking in
> >objects like eating with a spoon compares to eating with chopsticks.
>
> I don't really find that to be true.
>
> SQL is just another language. If you're working with databases in
> whatever form, you already know the underlying language.

A database without set logic (some present object databases) does not require you to think in sets. You only think in terms of single objects.

Agreed, a declarative query interface to create sets is a feature that is needed in most database applications.

> You're going to have to understand these kind of concepts in order to
> work with any form of database. And if you understand these concepts,
> learning SQL isn't going to be more difficult than picking up any
> other new programming language.

Set logic is different to the commonly used programming languages.

In my opinion "learning SQL after knowing Java" would be more difficult than "learning C# after knowing Java".

> It's got a fairly small vocabulary.

Yes, but there are lots of things to learn, which are not part of the ANSI vocabulary. It takes a lot of experience to know most of them and to take the right decisions.
Some themes:

- how do I retrieve newly inserted keys?
- which vendors support what?
- how do outer joins work?
- where is the "handle" to the result? (there is none!)
- how do I constrain columns of an outer join?
- which date format do I use?
- do I use meaningful keys?
- why do I need a group-by on every column to work with sums?

Kind regards,
Carl

---
Carl Rosenberger
db4o - database for objects - http://www.db4o.com