I've loved and used Django ORM and SQLAlchemy for many years. It got me a long way in my career. But at this point I've sworn-off using query-builders and ORMs. I just write real, hand-crafted SQL now. These "any db" abstractions just make for the worst query patterns. They're easy and map nicely to your application language, but they're really terrible unless you want to put in the effort to meta-program SQL using whatever constructs the builder library offers you. CTEs? Windows? Correlated subqueries? It's a lot. And they're always lazy, so you never really know when the N+1s are going to happen.
Just write SQL. I figured this out when I realized that my application was written in Rust, but really it was a Postgres application. I use PG-specific features extensively. My data, and database, are the core of everything that my application does, or will ever do. Why am I caring about some convenient abstractions to make it easier to work with in Rust, or Python, or whatever?
Anytime this topic comes up, this opinion is invariably at the top of the comments. However I've never seen a non-trivial application made this way. Mind sharing one? More than the query generation, I think people reach for ORMs for static typing, mapping, migrations, transactions, etc.
I'm not doubting that it can be done, I'm just curious to see how it's done.
I formerly worked for a travel company. It was the best codebase I've ever inherited, but even so there were select N+1's everywhere and page loads of 2+ seconds were common. I gradually migrated most of the customer-facing pages to use hand-written SQL and Dapper; getting most page loads below 0.5 seconds.
The resulting codebase was about 50kloc of C# and 10kloc of SQL, plus some cshtml and javascript of course. Sounds small, but it did a lot -- it contained a small CMS, a small CRM, a booking management system that paid commissions to travel agents and payments to tour operators in their local currencies, plus all sorts of other business logic that accumulates in 15+ years of operation. But because it was a monolith, it was simple and a pleasure to maintain.
That said, SQL is an objectively terrible language. It just so happens that it's typically the least of all the available evils.
YouTube is one from my experience. The team there had a pretty strong anti-orm stance. DB performance was an existential necessity during the early scaling. The object fetching and writing tended to be focused through a small number of function calls with well scrutinized queries and write through memcaching.
Anytime this topic comes up, I ask: Why not both? I don't want to modify my SQL strings every time I change a column. Django ORM lets me combine custom SQL snippets with ORM code. I never hesitate to use custom SQL, but its just not a reasonable default for basic CRUD operations that my IDE can autocomplete. Not only that, but also provide nice feautures pike named arguments, walking relationships, sanitizations, etc. At the same time, I can do a UNIONS, CTES, anything I want. I just don't understand why it's worth arguing against ORMs, when no one is forcing you to stop using raw SQL.
I completely agree, it is absolutely essential to understand what SQL is emitted, and how SQL works. Perhaps the strawman argument against ORMs is that they preclude you from knowing SQL. They don't.
The company I work for is one such example. We write inline SQL in a Python Flask+Celery app which processes >$3bn of salaries a month. The stated goal from the CTO, who was an early engineer, is simplicity.
In addition to the great replies folks are sharing, I've found LLMs are quite good at authoring non-trivial SQL. Have effectively been using these to implemnt + learn so much about Postgres
Many great SQL examples have long existed on stackoverflow and similar sources, but until the recent past were buried by lower quality questions and answers or SEO spam.
You will find that if you check sources they are lifted almost verbatim. LLMs are a way to cut through the noise, but they are rarely "authoring" anything here.
It's wild how far a little marketing can go to sell the same or an arguably worse product that used to be free and less unethical.
I worked for a publicly traded corporate elearning company that was written this way. Mainly sprocs with a light mapping framework. I agree this is better as long as you keep the sprocs for accessing data and not for implementing application logic.
ORMs are way more trouble than they’re worth because it’s almost easier to write the actual SQL and just map the resulting table result.
I've worked on a few, nothing I can share. I don't mind using an data mappers like Dapper in C# that will give you concrete types to work against with queries. Easy enough with data types for parameterized inputs as well.
My current company is built like this, and it’s great. I can’t think of a single production bug that’s come from it, which was my main concern with the approach. It’s really, really nice to be able to see the SQL directly rather than having to reason about some layer of indirection in addition to reasoning about the query you’re actually trying to build.
Every single time. Where are these developers? Orms are a god send 98% of the time. Sure, write some SQL from time to time, but the majority of the time just use the ORM.
We have a POS system where entire blogic is postgres functions.
There are many others as well. Sure Rails/Laravel/Django people use the ORM supplied by their framework, but many of us feel it's un-necessary and limiting.
Limiting because for example many of them don't support cte queries(rails only added it a couple of years ago). Plus it get weird when sometimes you have to use sql.raw because your ORM can't express what you want.
Also transactions are way faster when done in a SQL function than in code. I have also seen people do silly things like call startTransaction in code and the do a network request resulting in table lock for the duration of that call.
Some people complain that writing postgres functions make testing harder, but with pglite it's a non issue.
As an aside I have seen people in finance/healthcare rely on authorization provided by their db, and just give access to only particular tables/functions to a sql role owned by a specific team.
Writing queries is trivial and in any marginally complex case I'll write something which beats the ORM for efficiency. I suppose they are a god send if you don't know SQL but you can learn SQL quite quickly.
I worked at a company where we used Dapper with plain SQL. Like the sibling commenter said, simplicity. There were never [ORM] issues to debug and queries could easily be inspected.
SQL is such a joy to work with compared to all the baggage ORMs bring. I’m not against ORMs but I like to keep them as thin as possible (mostly to map columns to data objects). I’ve been happily using JDBC and Spring Data JDBC (when I needed to use Repository pattern) for a long time in Java.
I love SQL and use it all day long to answer various business questions, but I would never use raw SQL in my code unless there is a good reason for it (sometimes there is). ORMs are there for maintainability, composability, type safety, migrations, etc.. trying to do all that with raw SQL strings doesn't scale in a large code base. You need something that IDE tools can understand and allow things like 'find all references', 'rename instances', compile time type checks, etc.. Raw SQL strings can't get you that. And managing thousands of raw SQL strings in a code base is not sustainable.
ORMs are one of those things that a lot of people think is a replacement for knowing SQL. Or that ORMs are used as a crutch. That has nothing to do with it. Very similar to how people here talked about TypeScript 10 years ago in a very dismissive way. Not really understanding its purpose. Most people haven't used something like Entity Framework either which is game changing level ORM. Massive productivity boost, and LINQ rivals SQL itself in that you can write very small yet powerful queries equivalent to much more complex and powerful SQL.
I'm curious if you have tried SeaORM? I've used it a little bit (not too extensively) and really like it. It's like sqlalchemy in that you can declare your tables and have a type checked query builder, which is a big win IMO. It's nice to add/change a field and have the compiler tell you everywhere you need to fix things.
I've definitely had issues when using sqlalchemy where some REST API type returns an ORM object that ends up performing many queries to pull in a bunch of unnecessary data. I think this is harder to do accidentally with SeaORM because the Rust type system makes hiding queries and connections harder.
Most of my usage of SeaORM has been as a type query builder, which is really what I want from an ORM. I don't want to have to deal with lining my "?" or "$1" binds or manually manipulate strings to build a query. IMO a good query builder moves the experience closer to writing actual SQL, without a query builder I find myself writing "scripts" to write SQL.
ORMs come with a lot of baggage that I prefer to avoid, but it probably depends on the domain. Take an e-commerce store with faceted search. You're pretty much going to write your own query builder if you don't use one off the shelf, seems like.
I once boasted about avoiding ORM until an experienced developer helped me to see that 100% hand‑rolled SQL and customer query builders is just you writing your own ORM by hand.
Since then I've embraced ORMs for CRUD. I still double-check its output, and I'm not afraid to bypass it when needed.
Not really. ORMs have defining characteristics that hand-rolled SQL with mapping code does not. Eg, something like `Users.all.where(age > 45)` create queries from classes and method calls, while hand-rolled SQL queries are...well..hand-written.
I've been using django & duckdb together, which keeps me from using the ORM. Was this a happy accident for me? For background, I have a scientist background; I don't have as much experience w/ software and designing database apps.
You may not need to use an ORM, but hand writing SQL, especially CRUD, should be a terminable offense. You _cannot_ write it better than a process that generates it.
The cargo-cult shibboleth of "never put business logic in your database" certainly didn't help, since a lot of developers just turned that into "never use stored procedures or views, your database is a dumb store with indexes."
A lot of people probably think it's better to keep database "easy to swap". Which is silly, its MUCH easier to change your application layer, than database.
There's value in not having to hunt in several places for business logic, having it all in one language, etc. I was ambivalent on the topic until I encountered an 12 page query that contained a naive implementation of the knapsack problem. As with most things dogma comes with a whole host of issues, but in this case I think it's largely benign and likely did more good than harm.
But that is the result of having multiple applications needing to enforce valid states in the database.
"Business logic" is a loose term. The database is the effective store for state so it must enforce states, eg by views, triggers, and procedures.
Other "business logic" can happen outside of the db in different languages. When individual apps need to enforce valid states, then complexity, code, etc grows exponentially.
Other than a few ill-advised attempts to implement microservices infrastructure by well-intentioned co-workers I've not encountered situations where multiple applications needed to access a single data store. While I'm sure there are valid use cases there I suspect they're rare and should be treated like the outliers they are.
It was absolutely under version control and there was a full test suite. The guy that wrote it is easily in the top 3 smartest human beings I've ever met and an incredibly talented developer. Unfortunately a lot of his stuff required being at the same level on the IQ bell curve, which meant it was functionally unmaintainable by anyone else. If you're familiar with the Story of Mel, it was kinda like that.
genuinely curious, can you steel man stored procedures? views make intuitive sense to me, but stored procedures, much like meta-programming, needs to be sparingly used IMO.
At my new company, the use of stored procedures unchecked has really hurt part of the companies ability to build new features so I'm surprised to see what seems like sound advice, "don't use stored procedures", called out as a cargo cult.
Stored procedures are great for bulk data processing. SQL natively operates on sets, so pretty silly to pass a dataset over the wire for processing it iteratively in a less efficient language, and then transfer the resultset back to the database.
Like any tool, you just have to understand when to use it and when not to.
My hunch is that the problems with stored procedures actually come down to version control, change management and automated tests.
If you don't have a good way to keep stored procedures in version control, test them and have them applied consistently across different environments (dev, staging, production) you quickly find yourself in a situation where only the high priests of the database know how anything works, and making changes is painful.
Once you have that stuff in git, with the ability to run automated tests and robust scripting to apply changes to all of your environments (I still think Django's migration system is the gold standard for this, though I've not seen that specifically used with stored procedures myself) their drawbacks are a lot less notable.
You give no reasons why you think it's a sound advice.
My experience is following
1) Tx are faster when they are executed a sql function since you cut down on network roundtrip between statements. Also prevents users from doing fancy shenanigans with network after calling startTransaction.
2) It keeps your business logic separated from your other code that does caching/authorization/etc.
3) Some people say it's hard to test sql functions, but since pglite it's a non issue IMO.
4) Logging is a little worse, but `raise notice` is your friend.
> At my new company, the use of stored procedures unchecked has really hurt part of the companies ability to build new features
Isn't it just because most engineers aren't as well versed in SQL as they are in other programming languages.
It’s about what you want to tie to which system. Let’s say you keep some data in memory in your backend, would you forbid engineers from putting code there too, and force it a layer out to the front end - or make up a new layer in between the front end and this backend just because some blogs tell you to?
If not, why would you then avoid putting code alongside your data at the database layer?
There are definitely valid reasons to not do it for some cases, but as a blanket statement it feels odd.
Stored procedures can do things like smooth over transitions by having a query not actually know or care about an underlying structure. They can cut down on duplication or round trips to the database. They can also be a nightmare like most cases where logic lives in the wrong place.
Dapper is fantastic, and I'm happy to see it getting some love. It does exactly what I want: provides strongly-typed mapping and protects against SQL injection. It makes it easy to create domain-specific repositories without leaking anything.
In contrast, every company I've joined that used Entity Framework had enterprise products that ended up being a tightly coupled mess from IQueryable<T> being passed around like the world's favourite shotgun.
In my case, it has been either applications where Dapper is possible, or very high abstractions in CMS like Sitecore and Optimizely, where they come with their own approach which then again, needs a whole indexing engine.
One of the few things I have used in programming and technology consistently for over 25 years is SQL. Almost no time spent learning how to organize and query data has been a waste in my career.
Hmm, I sort of learned ad-hoc. Joe Celko's books were good back in the day. I never read something a lot later that was an "aha" for me. I think I was a little resistant to "NoSQL" databases for a while but eventually they made sense to me. I can't think of a single resource or turning point. There are probably some very good books out there now. The key thing is not /everything/ has to be SQL. And SQL databases like Postgres and SQLite can be used for a lot more than SQL now. Also, don’t be afraid to just throw protos/JSON/whatever into a database with no or mininal schema to get going. But manage data design debt ruthlessly, it can haunt you.
My biggest learnings:
Don't prematurely normalize data, but if it is obvious it can always stay normalized, normalize it. Read the normal forms. Learn about indexing and how data is actually being stored on disk. Just knowing about indexes is a huge advantage even today. Understand and know when to use different styles of data storage: row oriented, column oriented, key value, bigtable style (2d key value), document (rare). Pick good systems. Spend more time than you think you should designing your data. The system is often easy if the data is right. Learn ACID and CAP theorem. Learn when and where you can trade on fundamental database principles in your data model for performance or ease of development. Honestly, a lot of this stuff senior engineers at big tech are just expected to know these days, but it still isn't really obvious and not everyone has big tech problems. Still if you know how to solve the problems at scale and you can get out of your own way it is much easier to write smaller systems (most problems people have).
So in terms of resources, go learn about each of those concepts. Read papers. Ask an LLM about them. Play with databases and storage systems. Maybe try to write your own simple database. Go read about how people design massively scaled distributed systems and what systems they use to manage data. Just like with programming languages, be flexible and open minded. Read about how distributed systems work (CAP theorem). Almost all data systems make tradeoffs in that realm to meet cost/performance/implementation goals.
table of contents of the manual of the RDBMS your project is using is a good start and this is not a joke. most senior engineers (by job title, anyway) haven't gone that far.
If you do backend web development in 99% of software companies then being very good at whatever your RDBMS is is a superpower.
It's definitely worth learning SQL very well, but you also need to learn the data structures your RDBMS uses, how queries translate into operations on that data, and what those operations look like in a query plan.
You can go surprisingly far with just that knowledge.
The mere existence of Pandas makes me extremely grateful for SQL, because my job would be absolute hell if I had to use pandas or a similar syntax. It’s hard to overemphasize just how perfect SQL is for the job that it does.
Agree that Pandas is horribly irregular - the only worse query language I’ve had to work with is Mongo’s. After about a decade of regular Pandas use, switching to Polars was such a relief. It’s not perfect since it’s slightly limited by being a Python library rather than an embedded query language but it’s so much better designed than Pandas - even ignoring the huge performance improvement. In my circle, Pandas is being abandoned en mass for Polars.
I don't think SQL is "perfect" and I'm not sure it's rational to even be saying that. For instance, why is it that the syntax for an SQL query is "select A from B" when many SQL-inspired syntaxes have switched to something like "from B select A" to make it more compositional?
The relational model is pretty simple though. Pandas is an awful mess.
From-before-select has nothing to do with composition as far as I can think of? That’s to solve the auto-complete issue — put the table first so the column list can be filtered.
Things like allowing repeat clauses, compute select before where, etc are what solve for composition issues
Is that really how it should be judged? If I need to get data from state A to state B, SQL is the most elegant and efficient way to do it. If I need to modify the states, or break them up to optimize for memory, SQL is the easiest way to do it. It’s been around for over 50 years and no one’s come up with anything better.
Microservices are older than those, hence why Sun had the motto "The network is the computer". :)
By the time you are referring to, we were already on the classical 3 tier architecture, the
There are indeed Web frameworks for RDMS, that allow to expose the database as microservices, like Oracle's APEX, which grew out of Oracle's Visual Basic version, which used PL/SQL instead of BASIC.
> the second programming language everyone needs to know
Do they though? I've been writing SQL for over twenty years, and my experience is that LLMs have been better at writing it than I am for at least most of 2025, for most use cases. I have zero doubt that I will only be writing SQL when I want to for fun no later than sometime 2027.
An LLM can respond to any online discussion about <x> is a good approach for solving a particular class of problems with LLMs can do <x> better than a human better than you.
Agreed with that. As with writing SQL by hand you have to be very specific with instructing an LLM. There are many ways to get to a solution in SQL all present different tradeoffs and corner cases. I found that people that don't understand SQL and the basic of a given schema produce garbage both by hand and with LLMs
SQL has been the main skill I have relied upon my entire career. Yes, I have worked with Pandas and other data libraries; my take away from working with Pandas is it is a pretty language but obfuscates the relational database with a non-relational lanuguage. Relational databases require a relational language which is what SQL is.
My only problem with SQL is it was designed for human input (same as shell commands), not for machines. Hence the SQL Injection attacks and other peculiarities and inefficiencies.
IMO for machine-to-machine talk we should not be using a long text that needs to be parsed carefully and securely on the other side, but rather a structured structure that's easy to de-serialize (like AST packed into a protobuf, but for SQL). So that any invalid SQL parameters like "1;DELETE FROM users;--" would just fail to parse.
It may be called ABI, although it may be textual as well
(like json), not necessarily binary (like protobuf).
PostgreSQL already supports binary wire protocol, but I never seen it's being used, instead people prefer sending raw SQL strings designed for humans even from applications.
The basic thesis is that the relational model and SQL has been the prevailing choice for database management systems for decades and that won't change soon.
The advice to learn SQL is because it's everywhere. Now it has inertia, and a better way of doing things has an uphill battle. In 1980-s somebody compared working with SQL to drinking data through a straw, comparing to swimming in data with APL. We had a recent article comparing modern SSD delays and RAM sizes to those which defined architectures of SQL systems of recent decades - we can perhaps reengineer our databases better for modern opportunities. But all these approaches have to deal with SQL as an entrenched technology. Probably a task for a company of a Google class.
I’ve been heads-down on publishing a JavaScript full-stack metaframework before the end of the year. However, in the past two weeks I’ve been goaded by Claude Code to extract and publish a separate database client because my vision includes Django-style admin/forms. The idea is to use Zod to define tables, and then use raw SQL fragments with JavaScript template tags. The library adds a tiny bit of magic for the annoying parts of SQL like normalizing join objects, taking care of SELECT clauses and validating writes.
I’m only using it internally right now, but I think this approach is promising. Zod is fantastic for this use-case, and I’m sad I’ve only just discovered it.
Somewhat tangential to the article, but why is SQL considered a programming language?
I understand that's the convention according to the IEEE and Wikipedia [1], but the name itself - Structured Query Language - reveals that its purpose is limited by design. It's a computer language [2] for sure, but why programming?
"structured query language" is actually a backronym, SEQUEL is indeed a programming language and the only mainstream 4GL. consider the output of the compiler (query planner) is a program with specific behavior, just that your sql code is not the only source - the other inputs are the schema and its constraints and statistics. it's an elegant way to factor the sourcecode for a program, I wonder if Raymond Boyce didn't die young what kind of amazing technology we might have today.
With support for Common Table Expressions (CTE), SQL becomes a Turing complete language. To be honest, it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that a query sent to a DB server could be non-terminating and cause a server thread to enter an infinite loop. On the other hand, the practical difference between a query that contains an infinite loop and one that runs for days is probably negligible.
To be honest, I'd like to chip in that it is technically possible to write brainf*ck, an esoteric programming language but nonetheless, its a programming language
Btw this runs in sqlite, you can try it yourself if you are interested.
Source: I was thinking of creating a programming language paradigm like sqlite/smalltalk once where resumed execution/criu like possibilities were built in. Let me know if someone knows something like this too. I kinda gave up on the project but I knew that there was this one language which supported this paradigm but it was very complicated to understand and had a lot of other first time paradigm like the code itself / the ast tree is sort of like a database itself but so the tangential goes.
Because stored procedures do exist, and there isn't a single production quality RDMS that doesn't go beyond DDL and DML, adding structured programming extensions.
Also, even within the standard itself, it allows for declarative programming.
Because "programming language" is an adjective or a descriptive term. Whatever looks like a programming language, can be called a programming language.
This is completely wrong. The SQL spec isn't Turning complete but multiple DBs provide Turing complete extensions (like pgplsql) that make it so. Also, even without the extensions, it is still very much a programming language by any definition of the term. Like most takes on SQL, it is more about your understanding (or lack thereof) of SQL.
I was under the impression that recursive CTEs make the SQL spec Turing complete. Not that it makes any practical difference, it's still very difficult to use for "general purpose" programming, and still very practical to use for data processing / management.
Last year I read about some database researcher who implemented AoC in pretty standard SQL.
I’ve always hated SQL, but fortunately LLMs write it so well that it’s effectively become a read-only language now. You just need to know enough to check the output.
I agree. Claude Code writes superb SQL queries for very complex data. I was dealing with PostgreSQL recently, and it improved the query from 30 seconds to 5 seconds. I couldn't figure it out myself.
Prompting with documentation and examples works. In an agentic tool having an MCP server for the db helps assuming it is a straightforward schema with explicitly defined relationships. Also helps if the tables correspond to entities in a natural way.
We're pretty locked down around AI tools. Right now we can only really use GH Copilot, it's been ok so far though it's funny to see it suggest edits then suggest the opposite on the next time it review the PR if you accept them.
sonnet 4.5 was really bad at anything more than simple queries. even GPT 5 was not great. gemini was consistently good even at 2.5; caught multiple bugs in outputs of either. I haven't tested Opus 4.5 properly at SQL yet, but I've got a feeling Anthropic doesn't prioritize it in training and google does.
I switched to Opus permanently, but I am being cautious. It tends to go berserk and add a bunch of extras. Most of my time is spent narrowing the task to it. Sonnet was much more straightforward forward, but Opus' quality is unmatched when compared. I caught Opus messing up my CSP settings, and I had to restrict the access levels to deeper levels. Using it as an agent with full access without a plan more is suicide with Opus, but Sonnet didn't have this problem.
You should also be able to reliably generate working code with LLMs, but you can't. They aren't a good tool until they actually work when they are supposed to.
I've always gravitated towards query languages and SQL is one of my favourites. I've never really understood the need for ORMs and other abstractions but then I'm not a software developer.
If I was going to chose a "third" language I'd say regex.
The SQL standard defines more of an aesthetic than an actual language. Every database just extends it arbitrarily and anything beyond rudimentary queries is borderline guaranteed to be incompatible with other databases.
When it comes to procedural logic in particular… you have almost zero chance you’re dropping into that into another database and it working — even for rudimentary usage.
SQL-land is utterly revolting if you have any belief in standards being important. Voting for Oracle (itself initialized as a shallowly copied dialect of IBM SQL, and deviated arbitrarily) as the thing to call “standard” is just offensive.
I much prefer Kusto query language. SQL needs a few tweaks so that it's more type safe and supports auto completion. Some engines support From-first which is a good start.
I've loved and used Django ORM and SQLAlchemy for many years. It got me a long way in my career. But at this point I've sworn-off using query-builders and ORMs. I just write real, hand-crafted SQL now. These "any db" abstractions just make for the worst query patterns. They're easy and map nicely to your application language, but they're really terrible unless you want to put in the effort to meta-program SQL using whatever constructs the builder library offers you. CTEs? Windows? Correlated subqueries? It's a lot. And they're always lazy, so you never really know when the N+1s are going to happen.
Just write SQL. I figured this out when I realized that my application was written in Rust, but really it was a Postgres application. I use PG-specific features extensively. My data, and database, are the core of everything that my application does, or will ever do. Why am I caring about some convenient abstractions to make it easier to work with in Rust, or Python, or whatever?
Nah. Just write the good SQL for your database.
Anytime this topic comes up, this opinion is invariably at the top of the comments. However I've never seen a non-trivial application made this way. Mind sharing one? More than the query generation, I think people reach for ORMs for static typing, mapping, migrations, transactions, etc.
I'm not doubting that it can be done, I'm just curious to see how it's done.
I formerly worked for a travel company. It was the best codebase I've ever inherited, but even so there were select N+1's everywhere and page loads of 2+ seconds were common. I gradually migrated most of the customer-facing pages to use hand-written SQL and Dapper; getting most page loads below 0.5 seconds.
The resulting codebase was about 50kloc of C# and 10kloc of SQL, plus some cshtml and javascript of course. Sounds small, but it did a lot -- it contained a small CMS, a small CRM, a booking management system that paid commissions to travel agents and payments to tour operators in their local currencies, plus all sorts of other business logic that accumulates in 15+ years of operation. But because it was a monolith, it was simple and a pleasure to maintain.
That said, SQL is an objectively terrible language. It just so happens that it's typically the least of all the available evils.
YouTube is one from my experience. The team there had a pretty strong anti-orm stance. DB performance was an existential necessity during the early scaling. The object fetching and writing tended to be focused through a small number of function calls with well scrutinized queries and write through memcaching.
Anytime this topic comes up, I ask: Why not both? I don't want to modify my SQL strings every time I change a column. Django ORM lets me combine custom SQL snippets with ORM code. I never hesitate to use custom SQL, but its just not a reasonable default for basic CRUD operations that my IDE can autocomplete. Not only that, but also provide nice feautures pike named arguments, walking relationships, sanitizations, etc. At the same time, I can do a UNIONS, CTES, anything I want. I just don't understand why it's worth arguing against ORMs, when no one is forcing you to stop using raw SQL.
I completely agree, it is absolutely essential to understand what SQL is emitted, and how SQL works. Perhaps the strawman argument against ORMs is that they preclude you from knowing SQL. They don't.
The company I work for is one such example. We write inline SQL in a Python Flask+Celery app which processes >$3bn of salaries a month. The stated goal from the CTO, who was an early engineer, is simplicity.
In addition to the great replies folks are sharing, I've found LLMs are quite good at authoring non-trivial SQL. Have effectively been using these to implemnt + learn so much about Postgres
Many great SQL examples have long existed on stackoverflow and similar sources, but until the recent past were buried by lower quality questions and answers or SEO spam.
You will find that if you check sources they are lifted almost verbatim. LLMs are a way to cut through the noise, but they are rarely "authoring" anything here.
It's wild how far a little marketing can go to sell the same or an arguably worse product that used to be free and less unethical.
That's not how LLMs work. There are several sources covering the basics nowadays!
I worked for a publicly traded corporate elearning company that was written this way. Mainly sprocs with a light mapping framework. I agree this is better as long as you keep the sprocs for accessing data and not for implementing application logic.
ORMs are way more trouble than they’re worth because it’s almost easier to write the actual SQL and just map the resulting table result.
I've worked on a few, nothing I can share. I don't mind using an data mappers like Dapper in C# that will give you concrete types to work against with queries. Easy enough with data types for parameterized inputs as well.
My current company is built like this, and it’s great. I can’t think of a single production bug that’s come from it, which was my main concern with the approach. It’s really, really nice to be able to see the SQL directly rather than having to reason about some layer of indirection in addition to reasoning about the query you’re actually trying to build.
Every single time. Where are these developers? Orms are a god send 98% of the time. Sure, write some SQL from time to time, but the majority of the time just use the ORM.
We have a POS system where entire blogic is postgres functions.
There are many others as well. Sure Rails/Laravel/Django people use the ORM supplied by their framework, but many of us feel it's un-necessary and limiting.
Limiting because for example many of them don't support cte queries(rails only added it a couple of years ago). Plus it get weird when sometimes you have to use sql.raw because your ORM can't express what you want.
Also transactions are way faster when done in a SQL function than in code. I have also seen people do silly things like call startTransaction in code and the do a network request resulting in table lock for the duration of that call.
Some people complain that writing postgres functions make testing harder, but with pglite it's a non issue.
As an aside I have seen people in finance/healthcare rely on authorization provided by their db, and just give access to only particular tables/functions to a sql role owned by a specific team.
> Orms are a god send 98% of the time.
People who write percentages make shit up 98% of the time.
Or in other words: Source?
> Sure, write some SQL from time to time, but the majority of the time just use the ORM
So add another layer that has to be maintained/debugged when you don't have to?
> Orms are a god send 98% of the time.
Writing queries is trivial and in any marginally complex case I'll write something which beats the ORM for efficiency. I suppose they are a god send if you don't know SQL but you can learn SQL quite quickly.
I worked at a company where we used Dapper with plain SQL. Like the sibling commenter said, simplicity. There were never [ORM] issues to debug and queries could easily be inspected.
SQL is such a joy to work with compared to all the baggage ORMs bring. I’m not against ORMs but I like to keep them as thin as possible (mostly to map columns to data objects). I’ve been happily using JDBC and Spring Data JDBC (when I needed to use Repository pattern) for a long time in Java.
I love SQL and use it all day long to answer various business questions, but I would never use raw SQL in my code unless there is a good reason for it (sometimes there is). ORMs are there for maintainability, composability, type safety, migrations, etc.. trying to do all that with raw SQL strings doesn't scale in a large code base. You need something that IDE tools can understand and allow things like 'find all references', 'rename instances', compile time type checks, etc.. Raw SQL strings can't get you that. And managing thousands of raw SQL strings in a code base is not sustainable.
ORMs are one of those things that a lot of people think is a replacement for knowing SQL. Or that ORMs are used as a crutch. That has nothing to do with it. Very similar to how people here talked about TypeScript 10 years ago in a very dismissive way. Not really understanding its purpose. Most people haven't used something like Entity Framework either which is game changing level ORM. Massive productivity boost, and LINQ rivals SQL itself in that you can write very small yet powerful queries equivalent to much more complex and powerful SQL.
I'm curious if you have tried SeaORM? I've used it a little bit (not too extensively) and really like it. It's like sqlalchemy in that you can declare your tables and have a type checked query builder, which is a big win IMO. It's nice to add/change a field and have the compiler tell you everywhere you need to fix things.
I've definitely had issues when using sqlalchemy where some REST API type returns an ORM object that ends up performing many queries to pull in a bunch of unnecessary data. I think this is harder to do accidentally with SeaORM because the Rust type system makes hiding queries and connections harder.
Most of my usage of SeaORM has been as a type query builder, which is really what I want from an ORM. I don't want to have to deal with lining my "?" or "$1" binds or manually manipulate strings to build a query. IMO a good query builder moves the experience closer to writing actual SQL, without a query builder I find myself writing "scripts" to write SQL.
ORMs come with a lot of baggage that I prefer to avoid, but it probably depends on the domain. Take an e-commerce store with faceted search. You're pretty much going to write your own query builder if you don't use one off the shelf, seems like.
I once boasted about avoiding ORM until an experienced developer helped me to see that 100% hand‑rolled SQL and customer query builders is just you writing your own ORM by hand.
Since then I've embraced ORMs for CRUD. I still double-check its output, and I'm not afraid to bypass it when needed.
Exactly, and any good ORM will let you drop down to pure SQL if you need to for the weird cases.
Not really. ORMs have defining characteristics that hand-rolled SQL with mapping code does not. Eg, something like `Users.all.where(age > 45)` create queries from classes and method calls, while hand-rolled SQL queries are...well..hand-written.
Every Oracle rep I've ever met said every app should be a SQL app.
I've been using django & duckdb together, which keeps me from using the ORM. Was this a happy accident for me? For background, I have a scientist background; I don't have as much experience w/ software and designing database apps.
> Nah. Just write the good SQL for your database.
You may not need to use an ORM, but hand writing SQL, especially CRUD, should be a terminable offense. You _cannot_ write it better than a process that generates it.
The cargo-cult shibboleth of "never put business logic in your database" certainly didn't help, since a lot of developers just turned that into "never use stored procedures or views, your database is a dumb store with indexes."
A lot of people probably think it's better to keep database "easy to swap". Which is silly, its MUCH easier to change your application layer, than database.
There's value in not having to hunt in several places for business logic, having it all in one language, etc. I was ambivalent on the topic until I encountered an 12 page query that contained a naive implementation of the knapsack problem. As with most things dogma comes with a whole host of issues, but in this case I think it's largely benign and likely did more good than harm.
> hunt in several places for business logic
But that is the result of having multiple applications needing to enforce valid states in the database.
"Business logic" is a loose term. The database is the effective store for state so it must enforce states, eg by views, triggers, and procedures.
Other "business logic" can happen outside of the db in different languages. When individual apps need to enforce valid states, then complexity, code, etc grows exponentially.
Other than a few ill-advised attempts to implement microservices infrastructure by well-intentioned co-workers I've not encountered situations where multiple applications needed to access a single data store. While I'm sure there are valid use cases there I suspect they're rare and should be treated like the outliers they are.
Did that 12 page query have any automated tests?
I doubt it was even under version control...
It was absolutely under version control and there was a full test suite. The guy that wrote it is easily in the top 3 smartest human beings I've ever met and an incredibly talented developer. Unfortunately a lot of his stuff required being at the same level on the IQ bell curve, which meant it was functionally unmaintainable by anyone else. If you're familiar with the Story of Mel, it was kinda like that.
genuinely curious, can you steel man stored procedures? views make intuitive sense to me, but stored procedures, much like meta-programming, needs to be sparingly used IMO.
At my new company, the use of stored procedures unchecked has really hurt part of the companies ability to build new features so I'm surprised to see what seems like sound advice, "don't use stored procedures", called out as a cargo cult.
Stored procedures are great for bulk data processing. SQL natively operates on sets, so pretty silly to pass a dataset over the wire for processing it iteratively in a less efficient language, and then transfer the resultset back to the database.
Like any tool, you just have to understand when to use it and when not to.
My hunch is that the problems with stored procedures actually come down to version control, change management and automated tests.
If you don't have a good way to keep stored procedures in version control, test them and have them applied consistently across different environments (dev, staging, production) you quickly find yourself in a situation where only the high priests of the database know how anything works, and making changes is painful.
Once you have that stuff in git, with the ability to run automated tests and robust scripting to apply changes to all of your environments (I still think Django's migration system is the gold standard for this, though I've not seen that specifically used with stored procedures myself) their drawbacks are a lot less notable.
> My hunch is that the problems with stored procedures actually come down to > version control
Git? (and migrations)
> change management
Again. Just like any other code.
> and automated tests.
Just write an automated test like you write any other kind of test?
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you do those things stored procedures stop sucking.
It's also about separately scaling your business logic from the data layer
You give no reasons why you think it's a sound advice.
My experience is following
1) Tx are faster when they are executed a sql function since you cut down on network roundtrip between statements. Also prevents users from doing fancy shenanigans with network after calling startTransaction.
2) It keeps your business logic separated from your other code that does caching/authorization/etc.
3) Some people say it's hard to test sql functions, but since pglite it's a non issue IMO.
4) Logging is a little worse, but `raise notice` is your friend.
> At my new company, the use of stored procedures unchecked has really hurt part of the companies ability to build new features
Isn't it just because most engineers aren't as well versed in SQL as they are in other programming languages.
It’s about what you want to tie to which system. Let’s say you keep some data in memory in your backend, would you forbid engineers from putting code there too, and force it a layer out to the front end - or make up a new layer in between the front end and this backend just because some blogs tell you to?
If not, why would you then avoid putting code alongside your data at the database layer?
There are definitely valid reasons to not do it for some cases, but as a blanket statement it feels odd.
Stored procedures can do things like smooth over transitions by having a query not actually know or care about an underlying structure. They can cut down on duplication or round trips to the database. They can also be a nightmare like most cases where logic lives in the wrong place.
Indeed, Dapper, myBatis, jOOQ,...
Dapper is an unmitigated joy for me. i get to write the best sql needed for the case and then let the micro-orm handle the rest.
Dapper is fantastic, and I'm happy to see it getting some love. It does exactly what I want: provides strongly-typed mapping and protects against SQL injection. It makes it easy to create domain-specific repositories without leaking anything.
In contrast, every company I've joined that used Entity Framework had enterprise products that ended up being a tightly coupled mess from IQueryable<T> being passed around like the world's favourite shotgun.
In my case, it has been either applications where Dapper is possible, or very high abstractions in CMS like Sitecore and Optimizely, where they come with their own approach which then again, needs a whole indexing engine.
I agree and have taken the same path.
One of the few things I have used in programming and technology consistently for over 25 years is SQL. Almost no time spent learning how to organize and query data has been a waste in my career.
Bingo.
"Bad programmers worry about the code. Good programmers worry about data structures and their relationships”
Some quotes stick with you throughout your whole career.
Any recommended resources you wish you had encountered earlier?
Hmm, I sort of learned ad-hoc. Joe Celko's books were good back in the day. I never read something a lot later that was an "aha" for me. I think I was a little resistant to "NoSQL" databases for a while but eventually they made sense to me. I can't think of a single resource or turning point. There are probably some very good books out there now. The key thing is not /everything/ has to be SQL. And SQL databases like Postgres and SQLite can be used for a lot more than SQL now. Also, don’t be afraid to just throw protos/JSON/whatever into a database with no or mininal schema to get going. But manage data design debt ruthlessly, it can haunt you.
My biggest learnings:
Don't prematurely normalize data, but if it is obvious it can always stay normalized, normalize it. Read the normal forms. Learn about indexing and how data is actually being stored on disk. Just knowing about indexes is a huge advantage even today. Understand and know when to use different styles of data storage: row oriented, column oriented, key value, bigtable style (2d key value), document (rare). Pick good systems. Spend more time than you think you should designing your data. The system is often easy if the data is right. Learn ACID and CAP theorem. Learn when and where you can trade on fundamental database principles in your data model for performance or ease of development. Honestly, a lot of this stuff senior engineers at big tech are just expected to know these days, but it still isn't really obvious and not everyone has big tech problems. Still if you know how to solve the problems at scale and you can get out of your own way it is much easier to write smaller systems (most problems people have).
So in terms of resources, go learn about each of those concepts. Read papers. Ask an LLM about them. Play with databases and storage systems. Maybe try to write your own simple database. Go read about how people design massively scaled distributed systems and what systems they use to manage data. Just like with programming languages, be flexible and open minded. Read about how distributed systems work (CAP theorem). Almost all data systems make tradeoffs in that realm to meet cost/performance/implementation goals.
Thanks for writing this out - I appreciate it
table of contents of the manual of the RDBMS your project is using is a good start and this is not a joke. most senior engineers (by job title, anyway) haven't gone that far.
If you do backend web development in 99% of software companies then being very good at whatever your RDBMS is is a superpower.
It's definitely worth learning SQL very well, but you also need to learn the data structures your RDBMS uses, how queries translate into operations on that data, and what those operations look like in a query plan.
You can go surprisingly far with just that knowledge.
A great resource is https://use-the-index-luke.com/
The mere existence of Pandas makes me extremely grateful for SQL, because my job would be absolute hell if I had to use pandas or a similar syntax. It’s hard to overemphasize just how perfect SQL is for the job that it does.
Agree that Pandas is horribly irregular - the only worse query language I’ve had to work with is Mongo’s. After about a decade of regular Pandas use, switching to Polars was such a relief. It’s not perfect since it’s slightly limited by being a Python library rather than an embedded query language but it’s so much better designed than Pandas - even ignoring the huge performance improvement. In my circle, Pandas is being abandoned en mass for Polars.
I don't think SQL is "perfect" and I'm not sure it's rational to even be saying that. For instance, why is it that the syntax for an SQL query is "select A from B" when many SQL-inspired syntaxes have switched to something like "from B select A" to make it more compositional?
The relational model is pretty simple though. Pandas is an awful mess.
From-before-select has nothing to do with composition as far as I can think of? That’s to solve the auto-complete issue — put the table first so the column list can be filtered.
Things like allowing repeat clauses, compute select before where, etc are what solve for composition issues
Is that really how it should be judged? If I need to get data from state A to state B, SQL is the most elegant and efficient way to do it. If I need to modify the states, or break them up to optimize for memory, SQL is the easiest way to do it. It’s been around for over 50 years and no one’s come up with anything better.
I am quite found of PL/SQL, and stored procedures, no need to waste network bandwith with what can be done on the database.
'The original microservices'
Microservices are older than those, hence why Sun had the motto "The network is the computer". :)
By the time you are referring to, we were already on the classical 3 tier architecture, the
There are indeed Web frameworks for RDMS, that allow to expose the database as microservices, like Oracle's APEX, which grew out of Oracle's Visual Basic version, which used PL/SQL instead of BASIC.
> the second programming language everyone needs to know
Do they though? I've been writing SQL for over twenty years, and my experience is that LLMs have been better at writing it than I am for at least most of 2025, for most use cases. I have zero doubt that I will only be writing SQL when I want to for fun no later than sometime 2027.
An LLM can respond to any online discussion about <x> is a good approach for solving a particular class of problems with LLMs can do <x> better than a human better than you.
People who don't already know it still need to learn it if they wanna manage LLMs writing it. Anything else is reckless. So the original point stands.
Agreed with that. As with writing SQL by hand you have to be very specific with instructing an LLM. There are many ways to get to a solution in SQL all present different tradeoffs and corner cases. I found that people that don't understand SQL and the basic of a given schema produce garbage both by hand and with LLMs
> I've been writing SQL for over twenty years, and my experience is that LLMs have been better at writing it than I am for at least most of 2025
Wow, bad career choices?
I wouldn't think so, knowing SQL has been a benefit, and knowing how to use LLMs to write SQL even more so.
SQL has been the main skill I have relied upon my entire career. Yes, I have worked with Pandas and other data libraries; my take away from working with Pandas is it is a pretty language but obfuscates the relational database with a non-relational lanuguage. Relational databases require a relational language which is what SQL is.
My only problem with SQL is it was designed for human input (same as shell commands), not for machines. Hence the SQL Injection attacks and other peculiarities and inefficiencies.
IMO for machine-to-machine talk we should not be using a long text that needs to be parsed carefully and securely on the other side, but rather a structured structure that's easy to de-serialize (like AST packed into a protobuf, but for SQL). So that any invalid SQL parameters like "1;DELETE FROM users;--" would just fail to parse.
It may be called ABI, although it may be textual as well (like json), not necessarily binary (like protobuf).
PostgreSQL already supports binary wire protocol, but I never seen it's being used, instead people prefer sending raw SQL strings designed for humans even from applications.
You'd have to be using very antiquated (by nearly two decades!) patterns or practices for SQL injection to be a concern.
luckily you can use parameterized queries and completely avoid this problem.
SQL is great, but what is even better is a SOTA client. https://github.com/elixir-dbvisor/sql the BEAM can give you superpowers that no other platform can, handle massive concurrency with the performance that rivals bare metal and c https://erlangforums.com/t/elixir-dbvisor-sql-needs-a-sota-p...
A recent article in the space: What Goes Around Comes Around... And Around... | July 1, 2024 | 30 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40846883
The basic thesis is that the relational model and SQL has been the prevailing choice for database management systems for decades and that won't change soon.
Resubmitted because it's a good one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46359878
The CM DB group YT channel is good place to learn about the basics and advanced topics: https://www.youtube.com/@CMUDatabaseGroup
I find them great for database development, but haven't seen practical "how to use SQL" type advice from Andy.
The problem of SQL is that is is ubiquitous.
The advice to learn SQL is because it's everywhere. Now it has inertia, and a better way of doing things has an uphill battle. In 1980-s somebody compared working with SQL to drinking data through a straw, comparing to swimming in data with APL. We had a recent article comparing modern SSD delays and RAM sizes to those which defined architectures of SQL systems of recent decades - we can perhaps reengineer our databases better for modern opportunities. But all these approaches have to deal with SQL as an entrenched technology. Probably a task for a company of a Google class.
Learning SQL basically launched my career as a professional SWENG. Once I knew SQL, I found ways to apply it in even non-technical jobs.
This is a nice coincidence.
I’ve been heads-down on publishing a JavaScript full-stack metaframework before the end of the year. However, in the past two weeks I’ve been goaded by Claude Code to extract and publish a separate database client because my vision includes Django-style admin/forms. The idea is to use Zod to define tables, and then use raw SQL fragments with JavaScript template tags. The library adds a tiny bit of magic for the annoying parts of SQL like normalizing join objects, taking care of SELECT clauses and validating writes.
I’m only using it internally right now, but I think this approach is promising. Zod is fantastic for this use-case, and I’m sad I’ve only just discovered it.
https://github.com/bikeshaving/zen
This looks promising!
Somewhat tangential to the article, but why is SQL considered a programming language?
I understand that's the convention according to the IEEE and Wikipedia [1], but the name itself - Structured Query Language - reveals that its purpose is limited by design. It's a computer language [2] for sure, but why programming?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_language
"structured query language" is actually a backronym, SEQUEL is indeed a programming language and the only mainstream 4GL. consider the output of the compiler (query planner) is a program with specific behavior, just that your sql code is not the only source - the other inputs are the schema and its constraints and statistics. it's an elegant way to factor the sourcecode for a program, I wonder if Raymond Boyce didn't die young what kind of amazing technology we might have today.
With support for Common Table Expressions (CTE), SQL becomes a Turing complete language. To be honest, it makes me somewhat uncomfortable that a query sent to a DB server could be non-terminating and cause a server thread to enter an infinite loop. On the other hand, the practical difference between a query that contains an infinite loop and one that runs for days is probably negligible.
To be honest, I'd like to chip in that it is technically possible to write brainf*ck, an esoteric programming language but nonetheless, its a programming language
https://www.reddit.com/r/SQL/comments/81barp/i_implemented_a...
Btw this runs in sqlite, you can try it yourself if you are interested.
Source: I was thinking of creating a programming language paradigm like sqlite/smalltalk once where resumed execution/criu like possibilities were built in. Let me know if someone knows something like this too. I kinda gave up on the project but I knew that there was this one language which supported this paradigm but it was very complicated to understand and had a lot of other first time paradigm like the code itself / the ast tree is sort of like a database itself but so the tangential goes.
Because stored procedures do exist, and there isn't a single production quality RDMS that doesn't go beyond DDL and DML, adding structured programming extensions.
Also, even within the standard itself, it allows for declarative programming.
What is your definition of 'programming language'?
It should have arrays, and loops and conditionals.
Slightly simplistic: table rows cover arrays, recursive CTEs cover loops, and JOIN/WHERE cover conditionals.
Because "programming language" is an adjective or a descriptive term. Whatever looks like a programming language, can be called a programming language.
Also SQL is not turing complete. I see it more as a descriptive language like e.g. html is a language but not a programming language.
This is completely wrong. The SQL spec isn't Turning complete but multiple DBs provide Turing complete extensions (like pgplsql) that make it so. Also, even without the extensions, it is still very much a programming language by any definition of the term. Like most takes on SQL, it is more about your understanding (or lack thereof) of SQL.
I was under the impression that recursive CTEs make the SQL spec Turing complete. Not that it makes any practical difference, it's still very difficult to use for "general purpose" programming, and still very practical to use for data processing / management.
Last year I read about some database researcher who implemented AoC in pretty standard SQL.
If the spec isn't Turing complete, only individual extensions to the spec, I think it's correct to say "SQL isn't Turing complete".
It can do loops and recursion. It can use as much memory as it is allowed. It can do general programming via functions and stored procedures.
It can't do loops. Unless you're talking about extensions to SQL such as PL/SQL and T-SQL.
It can do loops. Recursive CTEs has been in the standard since SQL:1999
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL:1999
I’ve always hated SQL, but fortunately LLMs write it so well that it’s effectively become a read-only language now. You just need to know enough to check the output.
I agree. Claude Code writes superb SQL queries for very complex data. I was dealing with PostgreSQL recently, and it improved the query from 30 seconds to 5 seconds. I couldn't figure it out myself.
How do you present the interrelations between the tables when you're dealing with complex table structures?
Prompting with documentation and examples works. In an agentic tool having an MCP server for the db helps assuming it is a straightforward schema with explicitly defined relationships. Also helps if the tables correspond to entities in a natural way.
Use a tool to do that. Try https://visualdb.com it can send the relationships and table definitions to AI.
We're pretty locked down around AI tools. Right now we can only really use GH Copilot, it's been ok so far though it's funny to see it suggest edits then suggest the opposite on the next time it review the PR if you accept them.
sonnet 4.5 was really bad at anything more than simple queries. even GPT 5 was not great. gemini was consistently good even at 2.5; caught multiple bugs in outputs of either. I haven't tested Opus 4.5 properly at SQL yet, but I've got a feeling Anthropic doesn't prioritize it in training and google does.
I switched to Opus permanently, but I am being cautious. It tends to go berserk and add a bunch of extras. Most of my time is spent narrowing the task to it. Sonnet was much more straightforward forward, but Opus' quality is unmatched when compared. I caught Opus messing up my CSP settings, and I had to restrict the access levels to deeper levels. Using it as an agent with full access without a plan more is suicide with Opus, but Sonnet didn't have this problem.
Folks, the article is from 3 years ago, 2022.
With LLMs, you should be able to just query in English and have LLMs transpile from English to SQL.
You should also be able to reliably generate working code with LLMs, but you can't. They aren't a good tool until they actually work when they are supposed to.
SQL largely is plain English, which is one of its design choices.
I've always gravitated towards query languages and SQL is one of my favourites. I've never really understood the need for ORMs and other abstractions but then I'm not a software developer.
If I was going to chose a "third" language I'd say regex.
Data is the new oil or gold, SQL is the tool, the language to interact with it.
Put it together, it's pure gold!
I notice that the top image is of Transact SQL, the Sybase/Microsoft dialect. This is not a formal standard, and I suggest against its use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transact-SQL
SQL/PSM is a general ISO standard that grew out of Oracle PL/SQL, is rooted in ADA, and is implemented by a large range of databases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM
Standards are important.
The SQL standard defines more of an aesthetic than an actual language. Every database just extends it arbitrarily and anything beyond rudimentary queries is borderline guaranteed to be incompatible with other databases.
When it comes to procedural logic in particular… you have almost zero chance you’re dropping into that into another database and it working — even for rudimentary usage.
SQL-land is utterly revolting if you have any belief in standards being important. Voting for Oracle (itself initialized as a shallowly copied dialect of IBM SQL, and deviated arbitrarily) as the thing to call “standard” is just offensive.
IEEE Spectrum is full of uninspiring blogspam, like this post.
I much prefer Kusto query language. SQL needs a few tweaks so that it's more type safe and supports auto completion. Some engines support From-first which is a good start.
Knowing SQL, and knowing how to optimize queries has pretty much paid my paycheck for 20 years.
without CTE, is SQL a programming language?
SQL is not a programming language.
I wonder how this guy implement a ray tracer, then.
https://github.com/chunky/sqlraytracer