MarkusWinand
115d ago
270
133
MarkusWinand
The major news are:

- SQL/PGQ - A Graph Query Language

- JSON improvements (a JSON type, simplified notations)

Peter Eisentraut gives a nice overview here: https://peter.eisentraut.org/blog/2023/04/04/sql-2023-is-fin...

jchw
One thing that has always agitated me about SQL is that although it's standardized, and the standard seems to encompass a shit-ton, in practice a lot of SQL engines don't really seem to have any meaningful interoperability for practical uses among the world's most popular database engines.

For example, OK, I realize auto-incrementing IDs are not the most important thing in the world, and arguably not even a good approach in many cases. But sometimes you want them, and helpfully almost every database engine I know of has some kind of support for this, even if the semantics may differ. It's a super basic thing to want a unique ID that roughly counts upward on a table. You might have specific needs about re-using numbers and whatnot, but the general idea is very simple.

However: in practice, there is not an excellent way to do it that I can see. The closest thing I could find is `GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS IDENTITY` which, well, works. However, none of SQLite3, MSSQL, nor MariaDB support this to my knowledge.

This is relentlessly annoying.

Is it the standards fault, or the implementations? I honestly can't say. However, I definitely find this annoying, since I was really hoping that by this time, we'd at least have a nice clean subset of standard SQL you could count on anywhere, for popular database engines. Unfortunately, it's not quite there yet, necessitating ugly hacks to this day.

I assume this new standard doesn't really change anything on this regard, since it's a desync with implementations that is a problem, and it does not seem the standards committee really cares too much about this kind of thing. (I could be wrong, though, as I am saying this based on feel and not evidence.)

justinclift
Ugh, it's CHF 208.00 (about US$230.00).

---

As @rgbgraph points out below, the price is actually several times that. There are several parts to the standard, and that US$230 is per part.

awestroke
If only they could start allowing queries to begin with "FROM tbl". It would allow for for much more helpful autocomplete. Also, DELETE or SELECT should really be on the very last line of the query. Seems like these changes could be done without losing backwards compat
aerzen
Where would one find a pirated mirror of this standard? Or the 2019 one?

Asking for a friend, of course.

cpdean
I like SQL and all but I really don't care to follow ISO releases. They're hundreds of dollars and nobody actually implements the whole thing. I get way more excited about database releases.

Does anyone else find value in what's in an ISO standard?

bafe
All great features, but unfortunately most SQL DBs still miss the implementation of features from SQL:2016 like MATCH_RECOGNIZE. I wonder what's the purpose of an ever growing standard when most implementations only support a small subset of it, and often with nonstandard syntax and semantics
minroot
What's the point of a standard if it takes money to read?
gigatexal
It really is utter bullshit that we have to buy these standards. What are the business models of these standards bodies anyway?
tofflos
la_fayette
PGQs match syntax seems interesting and reminds me to writing sparql. I wonder if any RDBMS will support this?
gatvol
Not a standard if access requires payment.
galaxyLogic
The irony of for-profit (= for pay) standard is this: If someone provides a product for a price, then others should be able to produce a similar but better product for similar or better price. In the case of SQL that would mean there should be alternative standards provided by different vendors. But then if there are multiple standards, it can hardly be called a "standard".

I think tax-payer money should pay for standards, because they benefit us all. It is like the highway system, or clean air, and water.

xucheng
A related question: what is the state in term of supporting the SQL standard among the popular RDBMS? It seems that almost all database engines use their own custom syntax.
qalmakka
As much as I try understanding it, I don't see the point of this standard honestly. It sounds like some weird fanfiction made by delusional people who think SQL is actually a single language and not a hodgepodge of incompatible dialects.

It makes no sense to have a standard SQL when nonsensical implementations like MSSQL or MySQL exist.

sdflhasjd
Ah, a sequel for SQL
sr.ht