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
The multiple uses of WHERE with different meanings is problematic for me. The second WHERE, filtering an aggregate, would be HAVING in standard SQL.

Not sure if this is an attempt to simplify things or an oversight, but favoring convenience (no need to remember multiple keywords) over explicitness (but the keywords have different meanings) tends to cause problems, in my observation.

>>andy80+D7
> The second WHERE, filtering an aggregate, would be HAVING in standard SQL.

Only if you aren't using a subquery otherwise you would use WHERE even in plain SQL. Since the pipe operator is effectively creating subqueries the syntax is perfectly consistent with SQL.

>>wvenab+Ne
Perhaps, however then you eliminate the use of WHERE/HAVING sum(r.e) > 3, so in case you forgot what the alias s means, you have to figure that part out before proceeding. Maybe I'm just used to the existing style but as stated earlier, seems this is reducing explicitness which IMO tends to lead to more bugs.

>>andy80+eq
A lot of SQL engines don't support aliases in the HAVING clause and that can require duplication of potentially complex expressions which I find very bug-inducing. Removing duplication and using proper naming I think would be much better.

I will already use subqueries to avoid issues with HAVING.