Henning Thielemann wrote:
> At
> http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/HaskellDbTutorial
> it is described, how database queries can be modelled with a monad.
> However, I wonder if this is also possible without monads. Say, writing
>
> "DB.map col1 $ DB.filter (\row -> col2 row == 10+2) myTable"
>
> for
>
> "SELECT col1 FROM MyTable where col2 = 10+2"
Judging from the papers mentioned in the Haddocks, the monad is used
like a list comprehension. This way, joins can be expressed as
query = do
x <- table languages
y <- table programmers
restrict (language ! paradigm .==. constant PurelyFunctional)
...
Seems to be the main reason for a monadic interface.
Of course, the query is compiled to SQL, so filter or its monadic
equivalent cannot use arbitrary functions. This is prevented by giving x
and y opaque types so that the programmer cannot really access them. I
think this is why the monad feels a bit ill, i.e. despite the monad,
subsequent actions cannot depend on the contents of x and y (because
this contents is just a dummy).
Albert Y. C. Lai wrote:
> If and only if the database is a purely functional immutable data
> structure, this can be done. [...]
> Many interesting databases are not purely functional immutable; most
> reside in the external world and can spontaneously change behind your
> program's back.
I don't think this is the problem because SQL requests are emitted
atomically anyway. The (Query a) monad here has nothing to do with
mutability of the data base.
Regards,
apfelmus
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
