The Performance of Various To-Many Nesting Algorithms

It's been a while since jOOQ 3.15 has been released with its revolutionary standard SQL MULTISET emulation feature. A thing that has been long overdue and which I promised on twitter a few times is to run a few benchmarks comparing the performance of various approaches to nesting to-many relationships with jOOQ. This article will … Continue reading The Performance of Various To-Many Nesting Algorithms

Setting the JDBC Statement.setFetchSize() to 1 for Single Row Queries

An interesting hint by Vladimir Sitnikov has made me think about a new benchmark for jOOQ: https://twitter.com/lukaseder/status/1407662449331949568 The benchmark should check whether single row queries should have a JDBC Statement.setFetchSize(1) call made to them by default. The Javadoc of the method says: Gives the JDBC driver a hint as to the number of rows that … Continue reading Setting the JDBC Statement.setFetchSize() to 1 for Single Row Queries

MySQL’s allowMultiQueries flag with JDBC and jOOQ

MySQL's JDBC connector has a security feature called allowMultiQueries, which defaults to false. When turned off, it prevents using a useful, but potentially dangerous feature in MySQL via JDBC: try (Statement s = connection.createStatement()) { try { s.execute("create table t (i int);"); // This doesn't work, by default: s.executeUpdate(""" insert into t values (1); insert … Continue reading MySQL’s allowMultiQueries flag with JDBC and jOOQ

Standard SQL/JSON – The Sobering Parts

It's been almost 1 year now since jOOQ 3.14 was released in October 19, 2020 with SQL/JSON (and SQL/XML) support. Half a year later, we've released jOOQ 3.15 with MULTISET support, which builds on top of these features to offer type-safe nested collections, the way every ORDBMS should implement them. Building (dogfooding) on top of … Continue reading Standard SQL/JSON – The Sobering Parts

jOOQ 3.15’s New Multiset Operator Will Change How You Think About SQL

This is how SQL should have been used all along. They called it The Third Manifesto, ORDBMS, or other things. Regrettably, it never really took off. Because most vendors didn't adopt it. And those who did, didn't agree on syntax. But this is about to change. Thanks to the now ubiquitous SQL/JSON support (which jOOQ … Continue reading jOOQ 3.15’s New Multiset Operator Will Change How You Think About SQL

Having “constant” columns in foreign keys

I was asked a very interesting question on Twitter just now: https://twitter.com/connolly_s/status/1303957373107818497 Can we have "constant" foreign key columns in (PostgreSQL) tables? Luckily, yes, we can. Using a nice standard feature that is "computed columns" or "generated columns" Sometimes, you cannot completely normalise your schema for whatever reason. There may be a case where you … Continue reading Having “constant” columns in foreign keys

Using SQL Server FOR XML and FOR JSON Syntax on Other RDBMS With jOOQ

SQL Server supports transforming flat tabular SQL result sets into hierarchical structures by convention using the convenient FOR XML or FOR JSON syntaxes. This is really convenient and less verbose than the standard SQL/XML or SQL/JSON APIs - although the standard ones are more powerful. In this blog post, I'd like to show a few … Continue reading Using SQL Server FOR XML and FOR JSON Syntax on Other RDBMS With jOOQ

How to Map MySQL’s TINYINT(1) to Boolean in jOOQ

MySQL 8 does not yet support the BOOLEAN type as specified in the SQL standard. There is a DDL "type" called BOOL, which is just an alias for TINYINT: create table t(b bool); select table_name, column_name, data_type, column_type from information_schema.columns where table_name = 't'; The above produces: TABLE_NAME|COLUMN_NAME|DATA_TYPE|COLUMN_TYPE| ----------|-----------|---------|-----------| t |b |tinyint |tinyint(1) | Notice … Continue reading How to Map MySQL’s TINYINT(1) to Boolean in jOOQ

What’s Faster? COUNT(*) or COUNT(1)?

One of the biggest and undead myths in SQL is that COUNT(*) is faster than COUNT(1). Or was it that COUNT(1) is faster than COUNT(*)? Impossible to remember, because there's really no reason at all why one should be faster than the other. But is the myth justified? Let's measure! How does COUNT(...) work? But … Continue reading What’s Faster? COUNT(*) or COUNT(1)?

The Cost of Useless Surrogate Keys in Relationship Tables

What's a good natural key? This is a very difficult question for most entities when you design your schema. In some rare cases, there seems to be an "obvious" candidate, such as a variety of ISO standards, including: ISO 639 language codes ISO 3166 country codes ISO 4217 currency codes But even in those cases, … Continue reading The Cost of Useless Surrogate Keys in Relationship Tables