Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login
Show HN: Godb is a simple Go ORM for PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQLite and SQL Server (github.com)
205 points by samonzeweb on Dec 15, 2016 | hide | past | web | favorite | 88 comments



That's more of a query builder than an ORM: it doesn't actually use objects and only allows for expressing SQL queries in Go.

In that it is similar to LINQ or HQL or SQLAlchemy Core — at an even lower level really since things like conditions are provided as parameterised strings.


I agree, it’s a simple tool. As mentioned in the README, it’s not a full-featured ORM, but it does more than building queries as it maps Go structs with databases content (on this point I disagree as it use objects).

The purpose is to be more productive than doing all this job manually.

Many things can be improved, it's sill a young project. This project is initially a learning one : doing stuff to improve my skill, on my spare time. I tried to build something clean, and used it on some real data. Perhaps it could be useful for somebody else. Nothing more ;)


> on this point I disagree as it use objects

That's a technicality, it just loads query data into objects which is what more or less every query builder does, the objects aren't involved in any of the logic. By the benchmark you use psycopg is an ORM (it really isn't, it isn't even a query builder).

Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying a query builder is bad, I'm just saying this is not an ORM, and shouldn't be sold as such: it's going to disappoint people looking for ORMs like Django's or Rails's and it's going to turn off people who object to ORMs[0] but would have been interested in a query builder.

Not to mention a good query builder is an excellent basis for a full-fledged ORM.

[0] and there are many people who think ORMs are a terrible idea


> there are many people who think ORMs are a terrible idea

Not sure about terrible but it is not a bright idea to be object centric when schema remains king. Using ORMs makes perfect sense when your domain model is canonically represented by the object tier /and/ you are reusing these (common/core) domain objects to build a multiplicity of applications.


We agree. In fact I did not know how to qualify * exactly * godb.


> it just loads query data into objects which is what more or less every query builder does

Query builders build queries (like SQLAlechemy's core library). ORMs know how to marshal object attributes to/from database columns. None of this is to say that one is better than the other.


I don't like ORM in specific cases. Was looking for a query builder and almost ignored this post cause I don't need yet another ORM. Agree with rebranding as a QB, unless project intents to become ORM in the larger sense


>> [0] and there are many people who think ORMs are a terrible idea

Do you have any links perchance? Because I can't shake the feeling that I'm a pariah among the developer community for thinking this way.



Excellent, thank you!


Agreed.

In the functional world, there obviously aren't objects and structs are not the same things as objects in the OOP sense.

Even then the key part of a ORM is the "R". ORMs allow you to utilize a RDBMS transparently as if you were manipulating the OOP objects.

A couple of projects that this is closer to than Django ORM.

https://github.com/elixir-ecto/ecto -> "Database Wrapper" http://www.yesodweb.com/book/persistent -> "data store interface" https://hackage.haskell.org/package/groundhog -> "Database Mapping"


When your structs can have functions on them that modify the original struct's data, the line between object and "really really object like struct" is very thin.

I appreciate this guy's work, but DSLs make more sense to me than orms in golang.


Also, for others looking for a Go data layer / ORM`ish package, have a look at https://github.com/upper/db

it's been in development for years, its used in production by many companies, and theres been a lot of work to keep it lean and powerful through lots of iteration.


This looks like it may be what I was looking for (well initially I wanted a bells and whistles ORM like Django's but this looks better than the other options I've evaluated).


How does it compare to gorp? Been using gorp over the past month to prototype MySQL database schema and insert strategies for a performance system(final implementation might not be in Go). It's worked very well for me so far, but I'm open to alternatives. Some of the pain points are related to Go's sql interface(some of which are being addressed in go 1.8 apparently).



I've had issues with gorm. I find it has quirks that bother enough for me to move away from it. I have yet to find something I'll like more than just pure sql.

Goa is just for generating apis. Not for databases?


I'm the author of a code-generation ORM in Go (real orm, does relationships fairly robustly) https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler and I'm curious why you needed to make another one despite something like this existing? Granted we don't support sqlite/mssql yet, but surely a PR to support it is easier than writing your own :(


The projet started as a learning one. I made some independent and experimental component from time to time, and then glued them together, rewriting some parts, ...

Why this kind of project ? Because I used Active Record (Rails), Entity Framework, played with Django ORM, ... and regretted that nothing similar exist in Go world. Instead of complaining I choose to do something, not building a full ORM by myself, but at least build something allowing me to have a better comprehension of the constraints (except of the classic "no generic").

I didn't choose to build another Go library thinking I'll build something better than others. I learned, and I got a library ;)


Well, now that you're done learning I hope you'll become an sqlboiler user and maybe contribute to it to fit your use case too. Fragmentation in the sql world in Go is pretty bad right now, hence my reaction to seeing your lib, sorry for that :)


Why do you think "Fragmentation" is bad?


Splits development effort, slips developer skill across many options. Means everyone wastes time re-inventing the wheel instead of solving the problems they want to.


I want to see the Go community and it's libraries flourish. But having libraries like this around which provide extra confusing and probably poorly maintained choices for users is detrimental to it's overall health. There's already great examples of maintenance rot found even amongst the very popular libraries like go-yaml and httprouter.

One thing you can say about Go is it has 1000 Micro-frameworks, ORMs, Routers, and Logging libraries. Most of them are within a percent of giving the exact same feature set with the exact same approach and and ever so slightly different API. Lots of them share the same mistakes as they are a user's first project or a learning arena (though routing has been a pretty benchmarked area so that's been better than the others).

As someone who has open source libraries, and who uses Go in their day job and at home my personal opinion is that Go needs fewer, stronger libraries. Well supported, well maintained pieces rather than this illusion of choice that's presented today. I'm sorry if I came off as crass in my reply to the OP but that's simply the state I see in the community today.

Ideally there'd be 2-4 ORMs in Go that would be the goto. And half would use a code-generation approach, half would use the reflection based approach.

https://github.com/astaxie/beego/tree/master/orm https://github.com/cosiner/gomodel https://github.com/jinzhu/gorm https://github.com/go-gorp/gorp https://github.com/coocood/qbs https://github.com/go-reform/reform https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler https://github.com/upper/db https://github.com/astaxie/beedb https://github.com/naoina/genmai https://github.com/monochromegane/argen https://github.com/square/squalor https://github.com/theduke/go-dukedb https://github.com/dropbox/godropbox/tree/master/database/sq... (...and more) And now: https://github.com/samonzeweb/godb

Do we truly need this? This one in particular feels a lot like upperdb. And if it's for learning only, don't publish it to things like hackers news which makes people seem like it's something you should use as opposed to the more mature libraries out there. This is what I meant by fragmentation, it's an illusion of choice. There are actually very few logging/routing/orm/micro-framework libraries you should really use if you're serious about a project.


Kindly: you are not the gatekeeper of other's efforts, contributions, and submissions. Saying "you shouldn't have written this, open sourced it, or submitted it to hnews because I think my library is much better" is obnoxious behavior that I think is far more damaging to a community than fragmentation. People will consolidate choice of libraries with time. We shouldn't be shutting down new contributions reflexively, and it's much more distasteful when it's because you're advocating for your alternative.


An incredibly rude post in reply to something I think is reasonable. My opinion is as I stated, NOT as you very loosely interpreted thank you very much. I don't think of myself of a gatekeeper of others, just my own things.

I have a very high bar for open source personally and I tend to view it "more hardcore". I think that if you're putting open source out there to a wide audience such as this that you have a contract with the people you're putting it out to that you're going to maintain what's there and ensure it's of high quality. And if you're going to go to that level of effort why not contribute to something that's already mountains of work ahead of you and effectively the same code anyway (upperdb/gorp/gorm/xorm in this case)?

I have many Go repositories on my Github account that I've used for learning - but I've never put any of them out there to wide audiences that were solved by a more popular project in the same way - the approach has always been radically different. When I couldn't find logging libraries I liked I tried using others and contributed to them. I've also never put anything out there that I don't intend on maintaining basically forever. So my behavior is consistent with my viewpoint for whatever that's worth.

My colleague suggests that other people use open source for different reasons and view it much differently than me, and that's possibly the misunderstanding here. I shouldn't try to reflect my opinion in that sense on others and I do apologize for that. I suppose "if it were me" I wouldn't have done what he has, and I was commenting as if people knew and understood that as a commonality - which isn't probably true.

Also - I think you hugely overstated my bias for my own library. I'd be just as happy if he had not posted this and worked on gorp instead. /shrug.

Also I've been waiting for a long time for Go's libraries to be converged on - hasn't happened yet :)


I don't believe I was rude but I'm happy to apologize if others concur.


No, you're right on. If others want to work on something, that's up to them. Tell them they're doing it wrong is toxic.


It sounds like he's advocating for one of the many solid alternatives, not HIS alternative. Seems like a very fair argument to me. Why do we need more half-completed projects masquerading as if they should be used by people as serious alternatives, when they are not? If people want to waste their time re-inventing the wheel then so be it, that's their prerogative, but I do believe it is fair to say that it's a detriment to the community when every one of these "learning projects" that has nothing to contribute to the current climate is shared around as if it's a valid alternative to something that is complete and well supported.


Yes, you did came off as a bit hostile in your comments. But I really liked this answer of yours. Also, You need to be aware that Show HN is a great tool for people to get quality feedback for their work, even if it is in early stages.

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html


I just took a look, and found that I like this. Then I thought for a moment about why. The inspiration from ActiveRecord has something to do with it being "opinionated." However, there's more to it. I think I just realized that the best tools for increasing productivity are "opinionated" because they are developer "workflow-centric" as opposed to "code-centric." Code-centered tools are really good at creating blog-post sized examples, but can fall down when it comes to involved work. Developer workflow centered tools that arise from actual production work aren't quite as good at creating blog-post sized examples, but can be wonderful for getting things done.


One of the features listed is "Mapping with nested structs", but there's no example of this. Given that this would be a feature setting your project apart from many of the Go "ORMs" out there, it would be nice to have an example.

Maybe something with two tables: an "authors" table and a "books" table. Then an example of getting authors each struct of which has a `[]Book` of books.


Nested structs are shown in the documentation : https://godoc.org/github.com/samonzeweb/godb#hdr-Structs_map...

It's composition tool, not a relational one. Sorry.


> It's composition tool, not a relational one. Sorry.

Isn't the R in ORM for relational?


> > It's composition tool, not a relational one. Sorry.

> Isn't the R in ORM for relational?

I spoke about the nested structs. You can have nested structs for something else than relational mapping.

As I replied to masklinn , I was not sure how to qualify godb, and I admit that ORM is not a perfect qualifier.


Your library is a query builder, not an ORM.


ORM is a tool to map an object model (with which the developer interacts) onto a relational one, the R part is the one which ORMs try to hide, not the one they're trying to surface.


> ORM is a tool to map an object model

No, ORM means Object Relational Mapper. if your ORM doesn't support relations between tables, then it is not a ORM.

Given a relationship between 2 tables, an ORM will at the very least fetch related records when rows from a table are loaded.

> godb does not manage relationships like Active Record or Entity Framework,

Godb is therefore NOT an ORM. The title is misleading. People can't just make up definitions like that. It's either an ORM or it is not.

Godb looks like a simple query builder.


Relational comes from Relation which means "table", not relationship.

There's no relationship between 2 tables. You're probably referring to foreign keys, but these are just constraints, not relationships in the sense you're alluding in your comment.


While that may be true in the definition of a relational database, that is not generally what is meant by an ORM. The relationships between objects are a key part of what an ORM would provide.


Actually it's exactly what is meant by ORM.

Object Relational Mapper: It maps Objects to Relations.

Everything else is just auxiliary functionality.

Although I get what you're saying, and indeed the facility you describe is very convenient, it's not what the term means.

I'm just pointing that out because obviously people conflate relation(which comes from relational theory) with relationships.


Relation DOES NOT mean table. Relation does mean relations in the context of the Entity/Relationship model. It has nothing to do with tables, at all. So you are partially right technically I should have used the word entity, not table. But relation does not mean table again.


No. It would obviously be called Objection Relationship mapping and not relational.

This is really RDBMS 101 and we do have specific names and terms for a reason, please do not conflate them and don't confuse other people.

When you will go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entity%E2%80%93relationship_mo..., you will see that it doesn't even mention ORMs.

Now go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_mapping.

Read the "challenges" section that points to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mi....

Now I'll just quote this:

<<The object-relational impedance mismatch is a set of conceptual and technical difficulties that are often encountered when a relational database management system (RDBMS) is being served by an application program (or multiple application programs) written in an object-oriented programming language or style, particularly because objects or class definitions must be mapped to database tables defined by relational schema.>>

Open any DBMS book. Pick one at random and read the definition of a "relation". It's always going to be "table".

Alternatively, go to the most(?) popular ORM framework in the world and read this page http://hibernate.org/orm/what-is-an-orm/

More: https://www.fullstackpython.com/object-relational-mappers-or...

<<An object-relational mapper (ORM) is a code library that automates the transfer of data stored in relational databases tables into objects that are more commonly used in application code.>>

I could go on for hours, you get the idea.


Still doesn't make Godb an ORM.


> Godb is therefore NOT an ORM. […] Godb looks like a simple query builder.

Yeah I already said that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13184341


As it was stated, godb isn't really an ORM. The README and documentation was updated.

Now godb is just "a Go query builder and struct mapper".

Thanks for all comments :)


Took me a moment to parse the name correctly. Perhaps GoDB would've been a better choice, although I assume naming conventions prevented that and so the second letter of the alphabet was declared a deity instead.


Coincidentally, something called "GodBolt" [0] is on the front page at the same time. At first glance I almost thought they were related posts.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13182726


The annoying thing about ORMs in Go is that since there are no macros / annotations you either have to use code generation or reflection.

Reflection is a real drag on performance.


I took care of that, caching structs metadata to limit useless repetitive introspections, and others simple stuffs. But of course if will always be slower than manually crafted code.

With Go the cost is ridiculous compared to round trips with database server and query execution. More productivity for just a bunch of CPU cycles. Of course each use case and constraints are different, they're is no universal rules.

Entity Framework... that is slow ! I don't know for EF Core, but EF6 is really a slow thing.


But code generation doesn't have to be painful. Consider https://gopkg.in/reform.v1, for example. It generates methods for your data types and uses then to cover 80% of typical usage and also does help you when you want to use SQL.

(disclosure: I'm the author)


Code generation is always painful. It's yet another compiler add-on one has to add to a pipeline. Because now If I use your executable I have to manage your tool and its versions,it becomes yet another dependency. At least real/reified macros (that go lacks) need no third party executable . Code generation with third party tools means language fragmentation. Suddenly people add their own DSL on top of Go in form of a manifest. Suddenly Go executes instructions in comments and other horrors ...


Yes that sucks. So I have written / am writing my own code generation tool which runs only once and does not rely on any fancy instructions in comments. Ah yes ... maybe `go generate`. I hate a slow compiler.


Yeah, we use gopkg.in/reform.v1 in production. I've never had problems with code generation here. I like how it works, simple and clean.

Reform has enough methods for the daily routine queries. And also it's easy to use raw SQL queries with reform if we need them.


It's also a beast to debug in a large codebase.


I've not really understood the gain you get out of using ORMs or query builders. Doesn't it just add a learning curve to a problem already solved by SQL?

I know these are meant to decouple you from the db implementation, but don't most projects of sufficient complexity end up getting tied to one db anyway?


I, as an author of such library, am a bit biased but still...

For one, you may get massive, massive developer productivity by eliminating loads of queries. In a lot of ORMs you do things like myObject.save() instead of generating a insert/update query for the particular state of myObject without taking into consideration which fields of the object is currently set. This reason alone enough for me to use them.

Second, bunch of additional functionality usually come out of the box with ORMs, such as JSON or arbitrary (de)serialization of columns, caching, logging etc which you would have to spend time on custom implementations of these otherwise.

Third, like you mentioned, some allow very easy change of database vendor.

Fourth, mental abstraction from the underlying data storage (you stay in your language's domain) which again contributes to the productivity.

Some other benefits include not seeing large SQL strings in your code which make it more difficult to read and maintain, security and ability to easily reason about what the code intends to do.

I don't want to sound arrogant (not my intention at all) but I believe those who don't understand or downright rejects the benefits of a decent ORM system are either the ones that never used one to see the productivity benefit or those who work on projects that need to squeeze the last bit of optimization. In a large enough project it is seriously pain and time consuming writing all those queries which could be elegantly avoided.


How hard is it to just learn SQL?


I've been using SQL over 20 years in Oracle/Informix/Sybase/IBMDB2/MSSQL and have written exam questions on SQL.

That said, concatenating raw strings to form SQL that has no compile time type-checking is tedious and error prone. Thankfully, my "expert" knowledge of SQL does not blind me to the benefits of what a well-written ORM can do for productivity. (E.g. results caching, compile-time validation, auto-completion in the IDE, etc)


I think you misunderstand:

I know SQL and actually often enjoy using it. I guess this is a common trait for Java developers.

Still I often find a ORM to be a good tool on many projects.


Answer: not very! I don't know why people have such an aversion to it. SQL is a powerful, flexible, fun, and highly rewarding language to learn!

The only substitute I'd accept is a quasiquoter that checked my SQL syntax for me at compile time.


Powerful sorta, fun debateably, highly rewarding probably, flexible, absolutely not. By far one of the biggest reasons to use something other than raw SQL is because of SQL's near total lack of composability. Show me a valid SQL fragment that represents "the 'permission' field of the given table is set to true OR the joined-in user has the superuser flag", where the join is represented in the fragment itself such that any query I apply it to will have the requisite join added in if necessary. Then show me a fragment that represents "this email and all of its attachments". Then show me how to compose those fragments into a full query. You can't; if you're using raw SQL you have to manually interleave those things into every query you want to use them in. SQL basically mandates copy and paste as the only abstraction available, and it isn't even all that great at that since there's no such thing as scopes within a query making it easy for your copy & pasted fragments to stomp on each other's names.

Some of the additional query languages might be able to do it (they could certainly do chunks of what I said), but they'd still be pretty klunky about it since they bodge it on the side, and still don't compose anywhere near as well as they could or should.

Mind you, I'm not sure this library can do it either; SQL is also quite difficult to wrap around because of its structural deficiencies. Trying to hack away foundational issues at higher levels is always messy, error-prone, and still filled with the quirks that shine through.


You can use VIEWs [1] as an abstraction mechanism. It's not perfect, but it can abstract certain things away. I think it would work for your first example.

Something like:

  CREATE VIEW permitted_X AS
  SELECT X.*
  FROM X, user
  WHERE X.user_id = user.user_id
        AND (X.permission OR user.is_super);
You second example doesn't have enough info for me to see if it can be accomplished by a VIEW.

Other abstraction mechanisms are user-defined functions.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/sql-createvie...


With your view I still think I can't pass a table in; your X is not a variable. That's my point. There's a lot of power in SQL and its associated technologies, but there's also a loooooot of places where in a modern system we'd have a variable or some other composition mechanism, but there's no first-class existence of that mechanism in SQL. For instance, in systems programming languages, "first-class functions" have won so thoroughly that it's hardly even a "feature" anymore, it's just part of the baseline for any new language, or it better have a darned good reason they aren't present. SQL has not even remotely had that revolution.

Some of these things are fixed up by the product-specific languages, but only some of these things.

Here's another example; using your product-specific language, can you create a table for me with a variable number and types of columns based on the parameters passed in? I don't know them all, but I bet it's hard in most or all of them. No credit if your product-specific language lets you bash a string together and then somehow execute it; I'm calling for everything to be done via first-class mechanisms. (Also, I'm not asking for whether this is a good idea; it is obviously a tricky thing of dubious use. But that should be a software engineering determination, not a language restriction.)


If you want the table as a variable, you would need to use a prepared statement:

PREPARE stmt1 FROM 'SELECT X.* FROM ? X, user WHERE X.user_id = user.user_id AND (X.permission OR user.is_super)';

EXECUTE stmt1 USING 'yourtable';


As they've stated, the authors of SQL are not opposed to generics. They just haven't found an idiomatic way of incorporating them into the language that doesn't also impact prepare times. ;-)


I thought the unit object in conceptual model of SQL was relation/table. So a valid "SQL fragment" is a expression that evaluates to a result table, i.e a subquery. And in something like Postgres, you have functions returning tables, which should address the scoping issue that you raise.


When I run sql profiler for performance issues I like to see what is pass is what is received by DBEngine, I am not sure if it is helpful to add another layer for simple crud apps which is more than 85% in real world.


Not to argue your general point, but it seems to me that your specific composability examples could be addressed with PostgreSQL's temporary views and WITH clause.


Most people who use orms know sql.


That is not my experience. I have seen it countless times that people use an ORM in a way that leads to horribly inefficient queries behind the scene (e.g. looping over a result of a query and then executing a query for each of the result, where both could be combined in one). Things that should take milliseconds were taking hours...

It's also not enough to know SQL. You also need to know how your ORM maps objects to the database. E.g. do you get the same object if you execute a query twice? A surprising number of people don't know, and assume that ORM objects behave like normal objects and that is not always the case.


I think it's probably very dependent on the language and ecosystem you find yourself in when you need to approach this aspect of software engineering. It's probably much easier for someone learning to program and using Rails to let ActiveRecord be what you learn, and let it build your schema, and learn the minimum to make that work. Like all tools, shallow learning leads to misunderstanding, inefficiencies and mistakes.


Some people prefer not to write raw SQL, opting instead to use predictable interfaces or abstractions.

Personally, I prefer to write SQL in my models as it just _makes sense_ to me, but I understand why some don't.


ORMs are usually easier to maintain. Update your objects, write a migration. Things are usually updated.

If you start creating custom views and queries then you need to update them whenever there's a change to your objects. Also getting views into source control is something that you'll have to manage on your own.

An ORM is just less work. Although you'll often need to drop into real SQL for performance reasons or for complex work.

All the good ORMs allow this.


I don't really have an issue maintaining SQL, but I use YeSQL.


I didn't know SQL could map the relational data to my objects.


It can't and neither can ORM.

ORM does the reverse, it tries to map objects into relational data, the problem is that those are two incompatible way of storing data, you can do this for some objects but it doesn't apply for all cases.

Since relational algebra was proposed by Cobb, it took over all databases because it was proven that it's most efficient way to store data we know.

ORM might be useful for some cases, but it will generally limit you with what you can do with data.

IMO I think what's really missing is to have have another query language that is integrated with your programming language (so you don't have to write it as a string, and can benefit from language features such as auto completion, type checking etc).

I kind of wish QUEL[1] would win instead of SQL, since that language seems to be easier to be integrated.

There are also attempts such as LINQ[2] which appears to do good (I did not use it myself, since I don't program in .NET), but it looks great, I wish it became a standard and got integrated in other languages.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUEL_query_languages

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_Integrated_Query


As someone who is writing in go for some time (still deciding if i should learn something like C or JVM-based to get better at understanding big programms), i also want to get into Databases (never really learned to code. Everything is self tought). Do i need to approach a not-language specific way to really learn the SQL concept, and if yes, where do i start? In Chatroom i always read super complex stuff about databases and meanwhile i was never able to handle a SQL Database right, because i wasnt able to wrap my head around the documentation, and used something simple like bolt (in go) for my db needs.


I would recommend getting familiar with using your db from the command line. If you are in MySQL or Postgres, learn the basics. selects, inserts, updates, deletes, and joins. After you have a bead on those, get used to subqueries. Learn what denormalization is (might want to do that so you can play with joins). Learn what transactions are. At this point, you are probably better than most. After that, start digging into deeper parts by going through public docs and seeing what neat functions they provide.

After you know the above, you can use that SQL knowledge in any language you want when accessing the db. No need to learn a new ORM per language or anything.

Also, at this point, you are likely to start understanding more about scaling systems which involve intelligently choosing indexes, replication, and sharding. Now you are on your way to Jr. DBA status :)

That was my path at least. There are likely better ways.


ORMs are almost always a bad idea. They add an unnecessary layer of complexity which will result in both speed and space inefficiencies. If your project is small just use SQL, it will be easier. If your project is large you will end up writing a lot of customized SQL anyway, so just use SQL. If your project is in the middle, will never become large, you won't have to support it later and you already know the ORM tool then you may benefit from ORM.


If your project cares at all about security you should at least be using some form of query builder. The bare minimum is a system that binds parameters of a query to user data without manual escaping.

From there the distinction between ORMs and query builders gets fuzzy, it's more of a spectrum than a bright line. I particularly like SQLAlchemy's model of a core SQL-building library with an ORM you can use piecemeal around it.


Probably every modern SQL API supports safe query construction with out a third-party query builder. Building queries with simple string concatination is a bad idea but that's not a justification for the complexity of ORM.


I cannot see how to build nested SELECTs with Godb.


It's not really implemented yet.

You can build nested queries, doing some extra work, but it's not elegant and will not work for any cases (especially with PostgreSQL) : https://gist.github.com/samonzeweb/b1ae3e2d1f3203ee1722ac4bd...

Some work to do to add proper nested queries into godb, but for a so simple example it doesn't seem to be extremely hard.


Do you plan to make it work with CockroachDB?


I think that's more up to CockroachDB. They offer a postgres compatible interface so this should be usable with CockroachDB already.


I don't know CockroachDB, but if there is a Go sql driver (compatible with database/sql") and it uses standard SQL, you can write an adapter, see : https://github.com/samonzeweb/godb/tree/master/adapters


Is there anything like this or sqlx but in C?


Isn't CQRS the future?




Applications are open for YC Winter 2019

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: