const MAX_AMOUNT = 42, MIN_BATCHES = 2

database
    .from(table)
    .where(
        (amount) => amount < MAX_AMOUNT,
        table.field3
    )
    .select(table.field1, table.field3)
    .group_by(table.field1)
    .having(
        (id) => count(id) >MIN_BATCHES
        table.field0
    )

(Sorry for any glaring mistakes, I'm too lazy right now to know what I'm doing)

..and I bet I just reinvented the wheel, maybe some JavaScript ORM?

[–] expr 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.

Also, ORMs produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.

[–] emptyother 3 points 11 months ago

ORMs produce good queries if you know what you do. Which requires proper knowledge of SQL, unfortunately.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.

You might be right, though, to be fair, I also keep forgetting syntax of stuff when I don't use it very often (read SQL (._.`))

Also, ORMa produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.

I meant to say that I would like the raw SQL syntax to be more similar to other programming languages to avoid needing to switch between thinking about different flows of logic

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.

Anyway, I'm really against the "having" tag. You need another keyword so that you can apply your filter after the group by?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.

That's a good point, I didn't even think about it, maybe a more functional style would make more sense?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Boy then are you going to hate QUALIFY

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Yes, I do. It's a lot of effort and hidden functionality to try to paper over the fact that the statements do not compose.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

having is less annoying way of not doing needless/bug-prone repetition. if you select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol you can add having lol > 42 in mysql, whereas without (ie in pgsql) you’d need to do where someCalculatedValue(someInput) > 42, and make sure changes to that call stay in sync despite how far apart they are in a complex sql statement.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Postgres has the having clause. If it didn't, that wouldn't work, as you can't use aggregates in a where. If you have to make do without having, for some reason, you can use a subquery, something like select * from (select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol) as stuff where lol > 42, which is very verbose, but doesn't cause the sync problem.

Also, I don't think they were saying the capability having gives is bad, but that a new query language should be designed such that you get that capability without it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Check out Spark: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/examples/src/main/python/sql/basic.py

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Thanks for the suggestion! It looks interesting, not quite what I expected looking at that file*, but that may very well be better

Edit: other examples seem a bit more similar to mine, cool!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

most languages have some first or third party lib that implements a query builder

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

No. The arrow function in where eliminates any possibility of using indexes. And how do you propose to deal with logical expressions without resorting to shit like .orWhereNot() and callback hell? And, most importantly, what about joins?