> Not sure if tools and technologies can solve accidental complexity.
... and then say
> For me, consistent systematic naming and prefixes/suffixes to make names unique are a hint that a person is thinking about this or has experience with maintaining old systems. This has a huge effect on how well you can search, analyze, find usages, understand, replace, change.
I have battle scars from refactoring legacy systems where my predecessors did _not_ consistently or uniquely name things and I would not have seen it through without my sidekick, the type checker!
I guess I wanted to say that no tool/technology can prevent people from creating chaos (or make up for bad/non-existant processes). People need to do that. Of course, systematic people use tools as well. But you can't expect to buy or mandate a tool/technology and expect your system to then automatically have these qualities.
That is true! The system I mentioned above, which I had to refactor, was written in the worst Haskell that I've ever seen and nobody at the company dared touch it with a 10-foot pole.
Getting AI vibes from this article? It is strangely repetitive and meandering. Also tell-tale "It's not X, it's Y" and sort of unspecific mostly.
Also, why would you have billions of open transactions? That is the implication I got from the article as someone who doesn't know anything about Postgres.
(I use SQLite and perhaps I have Stockholm syndrome, but I like how it pushes you towards a design with small transactions, ideally entirely database-side.)
Very cool! Although this part feels a bit hand-wavy (or shall I say, AI-wand-wavy?)
<quote>
Machine learning decode: building on our previous work23, here we apply machine-learning-based decode (see section ‘Reading and decoding data’) to account for noise and inter-voxel cross-talk.
</quote>
+1. This is 100% hallucinated. Creds: My first programming language was GRAFIS CAD Fachsprache, a parametric pattern drafting software for garments, which incidentally powers our business (https:/liepelt.design—the website and intranet of which we are developing in ur/web btw just to clarify the geek factor!)
I cannot answer for their future plans, but in general, SQLite doesn't seem to be focusing on this kind of analytical workload at all. DuckDB would be a more likely bet in that space.
It also probably is hard even to get the SQLite _executor_ to accept these plans, given that they are not trees. It feels a bit odd that none of the papers seem to really talk much about this; they have an algebraic tree structure and then end up with something that's distinctly a non-tree after a rewrite. I understand that for the typical column store execution model of doing an entire operator at a time, this isn't a problem -- but wouldn't it be for the rest of the optimization pipeline? Like, how do you build a join (hyper)graph from this? To what degree are other rewrites (like, well, pushdown) allowed? It's obviously been solved _somehow_, since already HyPer could do this and they claim to be able to run the plan in Postgres, but it's not immediately obvious to me. Do they insert a CTE and thus an optimization barrier?
For lots of software unless you really know what you are doing it's best to just leave the default settings alone and not dig too deep into what's not immediately intended to do. For my application lots of bug reports come from people using our advanced settings without reading any of the instructions at all and screwing it up
So in the case of him being the creator obviously he built it for his needs
> Not sure if tools and technologies can solve accidental complexity.
... and then say
> For me, consistent systematic naming and prefixes/suffixes to make names unique are a hint that a person is thinking about this or has experience with maintaining old systems. This has a huge effect on how well you can search, analyze, find usages, understand, replace, change.
I have battle scars from refactoring legacy systems where my predecessors did _not_ consistently or uniquely name things and I would not have seen it through without my sidekick, the type checker!
reply