Hi, like this, people familiar with SQL (which are many) don't have to think, they just read and understand.
+1 Axel Am 04.11.2011 18:58, schrieb Peter Neubauer: > Hi all, > moving this discussion to the community, it is very important getting > your feedback! Including Andres' original post on top again ... > > 2011/11/4 Andres Taylor<[email protected]> > Good afternoon, gentlemen. > > I've been involved in a sales thingie, and had to translate SQL to > Cypher. At around the same time, Andreas suggested that we should call > Cypher PQL (pickle) instead - Pattern Query Language. > > After sleeping on it, I realized the obviousness of the truth - if we > want to hook Joe Corp Java-coder, having something that is similar to > SQL is a Good Thing (TM). So this morning I changed Cypher (and the > 228 breaking tests) to look like SQL. > > Example: > > Cypher > -=-=-=-=- > START lucy = node(1000) > MATCH lucy-[:ACTS_IN]->movie<-[:ACTS_IN]-co_actor > RETURN movie.title, count(*) > ORDER BY count(*) DESC > > PQL > -=-=- > SELECT movie.title, count(*) > FROM node(1000) as lucy > PATTERN lucy-[:ACTS_IN]->movie<-[:ACTS_IN]-co_actor > ORDER BY count(*) DESC > > The code is in place now (the branch is PQL). What's left to do is > take care of cypher-plugin, check that I haven't missed anything in > the manual, and make sure SDN doesn't mind. Michael assured me that > that would not be a problem. > > The question is - should we make an effort to ship this with 1.5? I > think we should. The change is purely syntactic - and that makes me > feel comfortable that no new bugs have been introduced. > > Opinions? > > Andrés > > (Peter - happy now? You win!) > > > On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 10:45 AM, David Montag > <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorta agree with Mattias. OTOH the syntax is pretty cool too. Could we > ask the community? Could this discussion be had publicly? Also, I like > the fact that Cypher flows forward and SQL flows backward. > > David > > 2011/11/4 Mattias Persson<[email protected]> > Going down the SQL-like path will certainly please many, but also > anger others where it doesn't function exactly like SQL... that I > don't think we'd get with that differentiated syntax. Also we'd have > to put constraints on evolving the syntax with "no, we can't do that > because that wouldn't be SQL like" and I'd really.... really dislike > that; it'd make us followers instead of leaders. > > Den 4 november 2011 17:50 skrev Michael Hunger > <[email protected]>: > > I'll take it to be the devils advocate. > > Do we really want to be perceived as a "SQL-like" database (aka first > association == RDBMS) also Pickle sounds like nitpicking and also like > PL/SQL. > What level of boringness do we want to afford. > > These are the gut feelings. > > What about all our users that already got comfortable with Cypher > (which is a cooler name btw.) and are writing a lot of queries in it. > > Also our screencasts, documentation and third party libs (also > provided by the community have to be updated, or at least checked and > their docs updated). > > Putting select at the beginning breaks the flow somehow, the return at > the end felt more natural, because I decided, what I want to project > as one of the last things, LINQ did it better too. > > Are our node and relationship-sets in the start clause really like > tables? (Aka sets of similar "rows") ? Probably > > Shoudn't we get rid then of the iconographic syntax as well? And > default to something like > FROM nodes() as x [LEFT OUTER|…] JOIN nodes() as y via r ON (r.type = > 'KNOWS' and … ) > > I know you're only taking on a role here, but I'd like to say: are you mad? > > > etc. > > Having said that all, > > let's go for it. > > Michael > > Am 04.11.2011 um 17:14 schrieb Björn Granvik: > > I like it. ...a lot. > > Could someone be the devil's advocate and point to possible problems? > Tech, ux, or whatever. > Or is it truly just a good thing? > > /Björn > > 4 nov 2011 kl. 17:01 skrev Ian Robinson<[email protected]>: > > I've got to say, that suddenly looks very good. > > Interesting moment at the NOSQL Exchange this week with someone > struggling to 'see' the ASCII art representation of a graph : Cypher > is perfectly comprehensible to me - it's only when you come across > someone else's misunderstandings and difficulties that you see the > benefits of conforming to expectations. > > I'd say: let's try get this into 1.5. The sooner we can start showing > off something that devs already expect, the more we'll hook them, I'm > sure. > > ian > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
