prql-query VS postgres

Thank you.

The CLI usability was one of the aims behind [prql-query (pq)](https://github.com/prql/prql-query/). sqlite integration was on the roadmap but unfortunately that project has been largely unmaintained by me for the past 6 months. (This is just referring to prql-query and not PRQL which is under very active development.)

I'm working on a new project which will do exactly this (and a lot more!) which I hope to release next week. I'll drop the link here when that's ready.

As an aside, I could also look at including GQL as a backend in pq (https://github.com/prql/prql-query/) which is my project. It's a bit badly maintained the last few months due to my time constraints but I want to do a big upgrade with the imminent PRQL 0.9 release.

Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think I knew about usql. I completely agree with you and have been working on a cli tool called `prql-query` or `pq` at the command line:

https://github.com/prql/prql-query/

Unfortunately I haven't had much time to spend on it of late but hope to push some updates soon.

I want to use this as a chance to bring attention to a GitHub issue that I think would help reduce friction for Neon:

https://github.com/neondatabase/neon/issues/4989

If the Neon driver were to allow us to easily pass in a localhost connection, the development and test experience would be easier. Perhaps Neon could swap to something like this internally: https://github.com/porsager/postgres.

Having run a local dev environment connected to Neon and tests connected to Neon got in our way of adoption. We'd prefer to develop and run tests against a regular Postgres localhost database.

To the PMs of Neon, put yourself in the shoes of a new developer thinking of giving Neon a try. What changes will I have to make to my code and my development workflow?

I'd push you to consider using postgres, slonik or similar for database queries. With these libraries, you just write SQL, but they perform input sanitization for you. So you can safely write:

Thanks Pier! Your comment saved me some frustration here :-D

https://github.com/porsager/postgres/discussions/627#discuss...

There's a core client interface here:

- https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/client-interfaces.ht...

On what makes it postgres.js faster, from author himself:

> it seems Postgres.js is actually faster than, not only pg, but of any driver out-there

- https://github.com/porsager/postgres/discussions/627

- https://porsager.github.io/imdbench/sql.html

When viewed as a DSL for set theory, views, CTEs, set-returning functions, et al are indeed proper first-class query abstractions.

When viewed through the lens of general purpose imperative or functional programming languages, it's easy to see how it can be seen as falling short.

I'll admit much of the tooling and driver APIs leave a lot to be desired.

Some tools do make good efforts though such as nested fragments in this driver.

https://github.com/porsager/postgres#building-queries

I don't think this should turn in to an ORM or not debate, but there are plenty of reasons, especially for the crowd that would do anything to avoid ORMs. Just try to take a peek into the multitude of "ORMs are bad" articles / discussions.

For instance - I would love to be able to use https://github.com/porsager/postgres with sqlite.

Demonstrate how easily and accidentally one can make an SQL injection with these:

https://github.com/porsager/postgres

https://github.com/gajus/slonik

They've looked at Postgres.js (https://github.com/porsager/postgres) before — wouldn't mind if they enabled those other cases in the same way.