-
Yeah, I worked on https://tablam.org and https://spacetimedb.com.
It becomes pretty clear that `order` is a significant property to make useful (and performant!) programs. "Duplicates" is also required to make usefull programs.
One nonobvious reason for this: You wanna report that a `customer` has a duplicated key `1`. If you CAN'T model `[(customer.id = 1), (customer.id = 1)]` then you can't report errors! And `erroneous` data is VITAL to make useful programs because then the only possibility is "perfect" data, and that is not possible!
Another reason is that we want to `count` duplicates, to see `duplicates`, and other NON-obvious at first: "What is a duplicate?". Get fun with floats, Unicode, combining case and non-case sensitive input... and is obvious that for useful programs IS REQUIRED to support bags in an extended version of the relational model.
And yet...
IS very important to remember about `set semantics` and try to adhere to it when makes sense. Your query planner will like it. You "valid" constraints like it. And `unique index` like it. And so on...
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
Yeah, I worked on https://tablam.org and https://spacetimedb.com.
It becomes pretty clear that `order` is a significant property to make useful (and performant!) programs. "Duplicates" is also required to make usefull programs.
One nonobvious reason for this: You wanna report that a `customer` has a duplicated key `1`. If you CAN'T model `[(customer.id = 1), (customer.id = 1)]` then you can't report errors! And `erroneous` data is VITAL to make useful programs because then the only possibility is "perfect" data, and that is not possible!
Another reason is that we want to `count` duplicates, to see `duplicates`, and other NON-obvious at first: "What is a duplicate?". Get fun with floats, Unicode, combining case and non-case sensitive input... and is obvious that for useful programs IS REQUIRED to support bags in an extended version of the relational model.
And yet...
IS very important to remember about `set semantics` and try to adhere to it when makes sense. Your query planner will like it. You "valid" constraints like it. And `unique index` like it. And so on...
-
This seems similar to how Eloquent (Laravel's ORM) will, by default, make separate IN queries when you ask for a collection plus its relationships (instead of using a JOIN).
I have thought about how you might return normalised data to your front-end and, with support from a front-end library, rebuild the object relationships so you can access them naturally.
I looked into JSON:API and indeed there is a Laravel library for working with JSON:API https://github.com/laravel-json-api/laravel.
One place I got stuck with JSON:API is that support for updating a row and its relationships in a single API request seems to have been kicked around for a while and is unresolved:
-
https://github.com/json-api/json-api/issues/795
There is an atomic operations extension:
