148
I wish writing SQL queries was more popular than ORMs (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/programming@programming.dev
64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Some backend libraries let you write SQL queries as they are and deliver them to the database. They still handle making the connection, pooling, etc.

ORMs introduce a different API for making SQL queries, with the aim to make it easier. But I find them always subpar to SQL, and often times they miss advanced features (and sometimes not even those advanced).

It also means every time I use a ORM, I have to learn this ORM's API.

SQL is already a high level language abstracting inner workings of the database. So I find the promise of ease of use not to beat SQL. And I don't like abstracting an already high level abstraction.

Alright, I admit, there are a few advantages:

  • if I don't know SQL and don't plan on learning it, it is easier to learn a ORM
  • if I want better out of the box syntax highlighting (as SQL queries may be interpreted as pure strings)
  • if I want to use structures similar to my programming language (classes, functions, etc).

But ultimately I find these benefits far outweighed by the benefits of pure sql.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

The SQL generation is great. It means you can quickly get up and running. If the orm is well designed it should perform well for the majority of queries.

The other massive bonus is the object mapping. This can be an absolute pain in the ass. Especially between datasets and classes.

[-] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

I find SQL to be easy enough to write without needing generation. It is very well documented, and it is very declarative and English-like. More than any ORM, imo.

[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

I don't c#'s EF is brilliant

dbContext.Products.Where(p => p.Price < 50).GroupBy(p => p.Category.Id).ToArray()
[-] immutabletest@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

LINQ looks great with the query syntax:

var productsByCategory =
    from p in dbContext.Products
    where p.Price < 50
    group by p.Category.Id
    select p;
[-] JWBananas@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago 
  p.*
FROM
  Products p
WHERE
  p.Price < 50
GROUP BY
  p.Category_Id```

Meanwhile the ORM is probably generating something stupid and unnecessarily slow like this:

```SELECT
  p.*, c.*
FROM
  Products p
JOIN
  Category c
  USING (Category_Id)
WHERE
  p.Price < 50
GROUP BY
  c.Category_Id```

Now stop using goddamn capital letters in your table and field names. And get off my lawn!
[-] Lmaydev@programming.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No it creates the first one. You can actually use a .Select to grab only the fields you want as well.

If I added .Include(p => p.Category) it would also populate the Category property. At the point it would have to do the join.

Also the table and field names can be specified via attributes or the fluent model builder. Those are the C# object and property names.

this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
148 points (94.0% liked)

Programming

17314 readers
71 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
snowe@programming.dev
Ategon@programming.dev
MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz