zlacker

>>legran+(OP)
Here is one example from the PDF:

    FROM r JOIN s USING (id)
    |> WHERE r.c < 15
    |> AGGREGATE sum(r.e) AS s GROUP BY r.d
    |> WHERE s > 3
    |> ORDER BY d
    |> SELECT d, s, rank() OVER (order by d)

Can we call this SQL anymore after this? This re-ordering of things has been done by others too, like PRQL, but they didn't call it SQL. I do think it makes things more readable.

>>Cianti+06
Yes, having |> isn't breaking SQL but rather enhancing it.

I really like this idea of piping SQL queries rather than trying to create the perfect syntax from the get go.

+1 for readability too.

>>pajeet+67
Honestly, it seems like a band-aid on legacy query language.