Re: SQL vs. 4GL

Path: emory!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!psinntp!eco.twg.com!twg.com!cauhape From: cauhape@twg.com (Jeff KB6TDU Cauhape) Newsgroups: comp.databases.informix Keywords: SQL, 4GL, standards Message-ID: <10087@gollum.twg.com> Date: 11 Feb 92 00:50:08 GMT References: <wemhoff.697427191@judy.cs.iastate.edu> Organization: The Wollongong Group, Palo Alto, CA wemhoff@cs.iastate.edu (Becky Wemhoff) writes: >I'm working in a new Informix shop, and there's a minor debate going >on here about when to use SQL code only and when to use 4GL code. We >all agree that a simple one-time-only report will be SQL'ed. However, >our current 4GL guru would like everything else written in 4GL. The >SQL guru thinks that the code would be simpler and easier to maintain >if we could write most of our applications in SQL. [ assumptions note deleted ] Becky, We have approximately 200 Informix-based applications at our site, and the level of skill with which they were written varies a bit. :) What I have found is that some things cannot be done efficiently (sp?) in SQL. When those things (almost all of them are reports) are re-written in 4GL, we've seen a 60x improvement in performance. I'm serious. Things which used to take hours now take minutes. On the other hand, SQL sure is neat for roughing together a first pass to see what the user wants. To write _everything_ in 4GL would be a waste of my time. I think you need both SQL and 4GL. For my two cents worth, I'd like to see a program which would find all of the programs which need to be recompiled when I modify a particular table. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Cauhape cauhape@TWG.COM x7147 Room 224 (SneakerNet) "Drawing on my fine command of English, I said nothing." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------