zlacker

[return to "Pipe Syntax in SQL"]
1. slt202+L5[view] [source] 2024-08-24 16:13:54
>>legran+(OP)
reminds me PRQL https://prql-lang.org

and SPL from Splunk

◧◩
2. mark_a+q8[view] [source] 2024-08-24 16:35:01
>>slt202+L5
Reminds me of KQL (Kusto Query Language) by Microsoft
◧◩◪
3. LeonB+Bm[view] [source] 2024-08-24 18:28:04
>>mark_a+q8
Yeh, when I saw the example above I thought it was KQL.

But they do sort of acknowledge it in the paper. Eg on the first page it says:

> …we present a solution – adding pipe-structured data flow syntax to SQL. This makes SQL more flexible, extensible and easy to use. This paradigm works well in other languages like Kusto’s KQL[5]

Strange typo though, to say “Kusto’s KQL” instead of “Microsoft’s KQL”

Kusto is allegedly named after (sort of in reference to) Jacques Cousteau, so “Kusto’s” doesn’t make sense.

◧◩◪◨
4. _huayr+ir[view] [source] 2024-08-24 19:02:23
>>LeonB+Bm
Does KQL still enforce no blank lines in the `let` clauses to the expression?

When I last used KQL, it was infuriating that I could create my `let` clauses in chunks separated by whitespace because a blank line would be considered a terminated statement (and Kusto would say "Hey where's your expression?!"). This meant every Kusto file was a sea of text with no clear differentiation between subsequent clauses. I ended up using 3 blank comment lines as a "fake empty line" just to maintain my sanity.

Again, hope they fixed that by now...

[go to top]