Elasticsearch SQL

https://www.elastic.co/what-is/elasticsearch-sql

by vincent_s • 4 years ago

106 61 4 years ago

alexott• 4 years ago

As I remember it was introduced in 2018th: https://www.elastic.co/blog/an-introduction-to-elasticsearch..., although there was an open source extension for that…

Although I wasn’t very hard to implement it for a subset of queries like group by, etc. - primary problem was a good OSS sql parser. We used Presto back in 2016th for that

synthc• 4 years ago

Seems like all the NoSQL databases eventually implement SQL, maybe we should use EventuallySQL instead NoSQL

datalopers• 4 years ago

MongoDB took about 8 years to fully implement SQL features but they forced it into their god-awful syntax. At least Elastic stuck with SQL?

jd_mongodb• 4 years ago

MongoDB has an SQL interface these days if you need it

https://www.mongodb.com/atlas/sql

chickenpotpie• 4 years ago

A reminder that NoSQL stands for "not only SQL"

ralusek• 4 years ago

In a practical sense what it really means is "non-RDBMS." Even more specifically what it means is "any of the database technologies that were created or popularized in the period following RDBMS dominance in order to circumvent the performance limitations RDBMS technologies encountered at internet scale."

SQL just, unfortunately, was treated somewhat synonymously with RDBMS.

jhardy54• 4 years ago

That’s a backronym.

NoSQL (originally referring to "non-SQL" or "non-relational") […] NoSQL systems are also sometimes called Not only SQL […]
— https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL

TotoHorner2• 4 years ago

What other prominent NoSQL databases eventually implemented SQL for queries?

jedberg• 4 years ago

Cassandra added CQL which is very similar to but not exactly SQL.

DeathArrow• 4 years ago

CockroachDB

robertlagrant• 4 years ago

Microsoft's CosmosDB (their DocumentDB clone) has a SQL-like (yes) interface.

wizwit999• 4 years ago

Even DynamoDb has one

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...

nl• 4 years ago

Hadoop (and any other Spark data source) via SparkSQL

coding123• 4 years ago

I haven't used it but you could technically do this over spark in a bunch of round-about ways. But this would be more direct. more right out of the box.

abraxas• 4 years ago

I’m conflicted on efforts like this. On the one hand SQL is for better or worse the Lingua Franca of database interfaces. On the other hand these half hearted, castrated implementations rarely work with tools geared towards working with true relational stores. The only real gain here is the surface level familiarity and of course the big fat check mark that the marketing team can put on the brochure to say “why, yes of course we support SQL!”

showerst• 4 years ago

Having spent entirely too much of my life working with Elastic's annoyingly verbose and confusing JSON query syntax, the SQL is a big upgrade here even if it's not 1:1 with relational DBs.

HyperSane• 4 years ago

Anything is better than Elasticsearch's terrible JSON query language. I actually try to avoid it because of how painful querying it is.

bearjaws• 4 years ago

I look forward to a future where everything is SQL at this point. It seems we have spent a significant amount of effort avoiding it, but it time and time again is the best way to query your data.

I recently started using Steampipe and it has made my life about 30x better not having to deal with the AWS or Slack API. Essentially a tool to let you query their APIs using SQL, behind the scenes it boots up a Postgres database and essentially does ETL into it.

It doesn't do any updates to resources though, so back to the API again...

https://steampipe.io/

Beltalowda• 4 years ago

The biggest upshot of SQL is that it makes migrating from one system to the next a lot easier. I can write something against SQLite or PostgreSQL, and when it comes time to move to $something_else for a particular aspect for some reason I ... just can, without having to rewrite the lot.

Of course, not all is perfect because no one actually supports ANSI SQL, and everyone has their own extensions and incompatibilities so you'll probably have to at least tweak some things. Besides, string concatenation isn't exactly a fantastic way to communicate with a database in the first place. But at this point it's pretty much the only thing we've got that's even vaguely universal.

chasil• 4 years ago

There is plenty of lock-in with commercial databases, although the problem is improving.

SQL/PSM originated with Oracle, and the ADA syntax is slowly creeping into many database products (but notably not Microsoft/Sybase).

If you use PSM, then a number of database products are off the table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM

ilyt• 4 years ago

The biggest upshot of SQL is that it makes migrating from one system to the next a lot easier. I can write something against SQLite or PostgreSQL, and when it comes time to move to $something_else for a particular aspect for some reason I ... just can, without having to rewrite the lot.

Meanwhile no matter how simple query I write I always manage to hit some difference between MySQL/SQLite/PostgreSQL... just recently I discovered SQLite/PostgreSQL have EXCEPT but MySQL does not.

MySQL in particular is usually the problem

deckard1• 4 years ago

at least tweak some things

That's really understating the problem. Oracle, for example, can be wildly different from MySQL or PostgreSQL. SQLite makes selects extremely cheap, so cheap, that if you try to do a straight migration to a server-based DB it will probably just choke. Assuming any devs on your team realized the benefits of SQLite and took advantage of them.

But it gets worst with SQL on things that are not relational DBs. The exact person that SQL-on-Elasticsearch is designed for is also going to be the person that won't know the idiosyncrasies of Elasticsearch well enough to know when they are in trouble.[1] They will end up trying to get explanations for what is going on in Elasticsearch in terms of what they know (i.e. SQL on a relational DB). The end result will then be confusion and ultimately re-learning Elasticsearch from the ground up.

[1] https://youtu.be/MO0r930Sn_8?t=368

yarg• 4 years ago

The syntax is still backward though.

SELECT blah FROM source

FROM source SELECT blah

Fixing this would permit some very useful developer features.

BeefySwain• 4 years ago

Is this the part where I mention that trailing commas should be permitted?

slickrick216• 4 years ago

It’s because it’s streaming I’d bet so really just a wrapper on;

index=blah | fields foo

snthpy3• 4 years ago

Have a look at PRQL!

prql-lang.org

ignoramous• 4 years ago

...seems we have spent a significant amount of effort avoiding it, but it time and time again is the best way to query your data.

It isn't that SQL is the best way (that these solutions keep gravitating towards it), it is just that SQL is pretty much the industry standard at this point. And supporting it is a predictable and usual ploy to expand userbase further.

More so for the fact that ClickHouse continues to threaten seemingly a critical portion of the business of both Snowflake and Elastic.

dataminded• 4 years ago

What query languages have you found that are better than SQL?

[edit] Typo.

munk-a3• 4 years ago

Nothing could quite match my disappointment when I realized that Splunk (a large scale logging storage and retrieval product) decided to create a Splunk Query Language and eschew SQL... except maybe when I realized that they had no equivalent of `val IN(1,2,3...)` instead requiring `val = 1 OR val = 2 OR val = 3 ...`

I have taught several non-techy business analyst type people how to write SQL during my years of employment - it really isn't that hard when most of the time it's just "SELECT what you want FROM where you want it" and teaching more complex concepts when and if they come up.

deeebug• 4 years ago

Unsure if it was added recently, but Splunk Query Language does have VAL IN (1,2,3) now -> https://docs.splunk.com/Documentation/Splunk/9.0.1/SearchRef...

matthewaveryusa• 4 years ago

And when those more complex concepts do come up and are too difficult to teach (or you want to lower the barrier of entry), you can always create a view that reduces the complexity back down to a select from.

ransom1538• 4 years ago

Put me at any company. Give me a mysql/oracle/etc replica to look at tables with SQL. I will understand your business pretty quickly. Give me a "key/value" store, i know nothing -- until i read the code.

stanislavb• 4 years ago

And improving your SQL skills is almost always a good choice. No-matter what tech-role you hold at the moment.

cyberCleve• 4 years ago

As I recall, this is severely limited in that it does not correctly support sub-searches or pivoting between different indexes. Any news on if this has been improved?

gavinray• 4 years ago

Just as an FYI for folks, you could query Elasticsearch via SQL with Apache Calcite:

https://calcite.apache.org/docs/elasticsearch_adapter.html

pebcakID10T• 4 years ago

It's pretty cool for light work, but I imagine you would be better off doing native ES queries so when you need more complex queries, weighted searches, and optimizations, you will be in a better place to do that.

jefurii2• 4 years ago

Why the f*** couldn't they just build Elasticsearch with a SQL query language from the start? I hate their JSON query syntax and now that this is out I feel like I wasted all the time I spent making my applications work with it.

jrochkind1• 4 years ago

I guess one question, then, is why the f** you couldn't just have used an rdmbs instead of ES from the start....

jefurii2• 4 years ago

Wasn't my decision to go with it.

eurasiantiger• 4 years ago

Because it’s Lucene under the hood.

fiedzia• 4 years ago

You can use ES as data storage, and in that case SQL makes sense. It was originally created as full-text search utility, and for that part SQL is not very useful.

xnx• 4 years ago

The next step is realizing that an SQL database is probably more than enough for most Elasticsearch use cases. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32059566

Thristle• 4 years ago

This was introduced in 6.x or even before that...

bitsondatadev• 4 years ago

Trino is a nice query engine solution if you want to not just run SQL on Elasticsearch but also want to be able to join data from Elasticsearch with data in other systems Trino supports. It also supports raw elasticsearch queries that are serialized back into Trino data types.

https://trino.io/docs/current/connector/elasticsearch.html

anirudha813• 4 years ago

https://github.com/opensearch-project/sql/blob/2.x/docs/user...

sql support as per MySQL Grammer.

Please see the features and upcoming support for streaming sql with materialized views with s3 support

anirudha813• 4 years ago

I agree sql is almost always better, but heard that many new students and programmers would rather have a piped Grammer. Eg. Unixish

https://github.com/opensearch-project/sql/blob/2.x/docs/user...

snthpy3• 4 years ago

Have a look at PRQL (www.prql-lang.org)! That's exactly what it's aiming to provide.

anirudha813• 4 years ago

we looked at it recently, alas; we start the effort much before prql came up

starik36• 4 years ago

I spent a ridiculous amount of time trying to get their ODBC driver to work as a linked server from SQL Server. I opened tickets and tested various versions. Finally I just gave up because I moved to a company that wasn't using ES.

I wonder if they ever got the ODBC driver to work.

amyjess• 4 years ago

I would like SQL better if jOOQ-style libraries were common across every major language.

A standardized query language is good, but passing in queries as strings will never not feel wrong to me.

vladsanchez• 4 years ago

LOL, it only took them 8yrs!? Been waiting for it too long, already abandoned ES! Thanks but, no thanks!

Elasticsearch SQL

Related Stories