2024/09/29

Newest at the top

2024-09-30 00:32:50 +0200 <geekosaur> basically it has no clue about query optimization, so where postgresql and even mariadb will optimize joins to at leats some extent, sqlite will keep brute-forcing them
2024-09-30 00:31:50 +0200 <andrewboltachev> (didn't learn how to read output of EXPLAIN yet)
2024-09-30 00:31:47 +0200 <geekosaur> this is the price of being small and simple
2024-09-30 00:31:37 +0200 <geekosaur> sqlite's just bad at jpining; it works best with single flat tables
2024-09-30 00:31:23 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco
2024-09-30 00:31:18 +0200 <monochrom> Why is sqlite bad with foreign keys? If I create an index for the foreign key column, will it be much better?
2024-09-30 00:31:03 +0200 <andrewboltachev> geekosaur: I believe there's a lot of science happening under the hood of Postgres :-)
2024-09-30 00:30:59 +0200alp(~alp@user/alp) alp
2024-09-30 00:30:59 +0200alp(~alp@2001:861:e3d6:8f80:9956:3934:6a0b:7b98) (Changing host)
2024-09-30 00:30:50 +0200acidjnk(~acidjnk@p200300d6e72cfb46757e16ffb08be72b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 272 seconds)
2024-09-30 00:30:47 +0200alp(~alp@2001:861:e3d6:8f80:9956:3934:6a0b:7b98)
2024-09-30 00:30:31 +0200 <hololeap> lol
2024-09-30 00:30:20 +0200 <hololeap> it's cool I just threw it out because at first glance it seemed vaguely relevant to the backlog I bothered to read
2024-09-30 00:29:14 +0200 <andrewboltachev> hololeap: thanks. sorry
2024-09-30 00:29:13 +0200 <geekosaur> postgres has this thing where it's slower than simpler dbs for small tables, but scales far better than other databases as they get larger and more joins are involved
2024-09-30 00:28:26 +0200 <andrewboltachev> yes I worked with ppl who denied fks in Postgres in "pursuit" for performance
2024-09-30 00:28:25 +0200 <hololeap> the article mentions three different approaches, including nullable columns
2024-09-30 00:27:29 +0200 <geekosaur> mariadb is poor
2024-09-30 00:27:06 +0200 <geekosaur> depends on the db, really. sqlite will be bad, postgresql should be reasonable
2024-09-30 00:26:40 +0200 <andrewboltachev> so one approach is to have e.g. "type" column and then several nullable columns, where each subset is for particular type etc etc
2024-09-30 00:26:08 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) (Client Quit)
2024-09-30 00:26:03 +0200 <andrewboltachev> hololeap: also, some ppl say that having extra constraints in SQL will make db perform slower. (some even say that Foreign keys make it slow)
2024-09-30 00:25:55 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco
2024-09-30 00:25:16 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) (Client Quit)
2024-09-30 00:25:12 +0200 <hololeap> ok
2024-09-30 00:25:06 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco
2024-09-30 00:24:35 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) (Quit: WeeChat 4.1.1)
2024-09-30 00:24:30 +0200 <andrewboltachev> hololeap: well, this is for SQL, but I rather mention "Categorical Databases" :-)
2024-09-30 00:24:13 +0200athan(~athan@syn-098-153-145-140.biz.spectrum.com) (Quit: Konversation terminated!)
2024-09-30 00:23:42 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds)
2024-09-30 00:22:00 +0200 <hololeap> andrewboltachev: https://www.parsonsmatt.org/2019/03/19/sum_types_in_sql.html ?
2024-09-30 00:18:55 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) merijn
2024-09-30 00:17:13 +0200 <andrewboltachev> if I generalize the idea (which I want) and the "generalized table" has also coproducts, e.g. either "pickup" or "delivery" (for a web store like Amazon perhaps) then how do they map coproduct onto Set
2024-09-30 00:16:22 +0200tromp(~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl) (Quit: My iMac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
2024-09-30 00:15:47 +0200machinedgod(~machinedg@d50-99-47-73.abhsia.telus.net) machinedgod
2024-09-30 00:14:54 +0200 <andrewboltachev> but I believe it only works for them 'cause single "database table" is like a product of fields: (e.g. first_name, last_name, email, password etc)
2024-09-30 00:13:51 +0200 <andrewboltachev> in, for example "Categorical Databases" by David Spivak et al they talk about a "Database instance" functor C -> Set
2024-09-30 00:13:06 +0200 <andrewboltachev> coproducts (in ADTs) have been a problem (or main point of interest?) for me in this (bigger) idea that I research
2024-09-30 00:11:20 +0200Eoco(~ian@128.101.131.218) Eoco
2024-09-30 00:10:30 +0200 <dolio> I.E. functions.
2024-09-30 00:10:25 +0200 <andrewboltachev> ah
2024-09-30 00:10:21 +0200 <dolio> No. Exponentials will.
2024-09-30 00:09:57 +0200 <andrewboltachev> dolio: Maybe coproduct will give rise for contravariant functors in the idea you've given
2024-09-30 00:09:22 +0200 <andrewboltachev> https://app.diagrams.net/#G1lKco0mv66sGjTyMSMU1g-ogSE5PIbdzc#%7B%22pageId%22%3A%22YBh8yTivGdvy1ecIg6Zf%22%7D
2024-09-30 00:08:09 +0200merijn(~merijn@204-220-045-062.dynamic.caiway.nl) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
2024-09-30 00:06:40 +0200 <dolio> But all the examples were covariant functors.
2024-09-30 00:06:12 +0200 <dolio> Also, depending on what exactly you want to do, you might need not just numbers, but lists indicating whether the argument is covariant or contravariant, and so on.
2024-09-30 00:06:09 +0200tromp(~textual@92-110-219-57.cable.dynamic.v4.ziggo.nl)
2024-09-30 00:04:34 +0200 <andrewboltachev> Yes. thanks a lot for the idea! I'll research it
2024-09-30 00:03:57 +0200 <dolio> Yes. But what you're talking about is assembling many different arities of functors into a single category. So that requires having some way of relating different arities to make any sense.