SoylentNews

SQL is 43 Years Old - Here’s 8 Reasons We Still Use It Today

posted by on Thursday May 04 2017, @11:47AM   
from the fun-with-injections dept.

Phoenix666 writes:

SQL and relational database management systems or RDBMS were invented simultaneously by Edgar F. Codd in the early 1970s. The simple fact that both arrived early in the life of computing, and that for 90% of the time they just work, means databases have become a 'solved problem' you no longer need to think about.

It's like how MailChimp has become synonymous with sending email newsletters. If you want to work with data you use RDBMS and SQL. In fact, there usually needs to be a good reason not to use them. Just like there needs to be a good reason not to use MailChimp for sending emails, or Stripe for taking card payments.

But people do use other other email automation software and payment solutions, just like people use NoSQL databases. Yet even with other database technology available, albeit less mature technology, SQL still reigns and reigns well.

So, finally, here are 8 reasons we still use SQL 43 years after it was first cooked up.

It's clickbait, I tell ya!

*SPOILER* (click to show) *SPOILER* (click to hide)

• 1. Simple mathematics
• 2. Battle-tested
• 3. Knowledge and community
• 4. Simplicity
• 5. Ubiquity
• 6. Open Source and interoperability
• 7. Why code when you can use SQL?
• 8. SQL/RDBMS and NoSQL/DBMS databases play different roles

---

Original Submission

• JOIN vs WHERE JOIN vs WHERE (Score: 3, Informative) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:17PM (2 children)

  by digitalaudiorock (688) on Thursday May 04 2017, @07:17PM (#504489) Journal

  One of the things that I'd say really caused confusing SQL syntax was the long period of time where Oracle (and possibly others) required the use of WHERE to join tables. Things are so much more clear when the JOIN is used to join multiple tables based on their logical relationship, and WHERE is used only for express filtering of the resulting structure. I've encountered people who still code that way and I find it all but unreadable.

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Informative=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:JOIN vs WHERE (Score: 1) by bibendumsn on Thursday May 04 2017, @08:11PM

  by bibendumsn (3138) on Thursday May 04 2017, @08:11PM (#504507)

  I'm with you. Whenever I am given a query like that I find myself compelled to fix it. My other pet peeve are queries where the author has tried to use as many subqueries as possible. e.g.:

  select *
  from
    (select *
    from accounts
    where accounts.account = 123) a

  Parent

• Re:JOIN vs WHERE (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:55PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @09:55PM (#504556)

  I find the JOIN clause limiting when using lots of outer joins. In the old style in Oracle, using the "(+)" modifier in the WHERE clause to get multiple outer joins works as expected. But trying the same using a JOIN clause causes missing records higher up in the list to "short circuit" joins lower in the list, which is often not what one wants. A missing record in one sub-join shouldn't impact other sub-joins. Perhaps there's a work-around, but I haven't found to get outer join independence.

  Parent