That would require you to map the SQL to something else which would then map back to SQL or mongo or w/e. For example if you're trying to join data from multiple microservices you can't execute the join because most microservices setups are not going to allow joins. The joins would have to be mapped to service to service calls and at this point you're just rebuilding an orchestration layer which has already been solved by graphql.
So we invented a query language (GraphQL) to solve an orchestration problem?
Sorry but I don't buy this reason. Especially not to the question: "Why we don't use SQL as a query language?" especially because REST was around way earlier than GraphQL.
Your reasoning could be great to answer the question: "Why we like GraphQL where there are a lot of microservices?"
BTW, there is nothing inherent in the language in itself, if each microservices would be speaking SQL, you would simply need to optmize your SQL query, decompose your optimized SQL query creating simpler queries one for each microservice, send each of those queries to the relative microservices, compute back the final result.
If you replace "microservices" with "table" here you get the standard way an SQL engine works :)
Please, it is not that I am against GraphQL, but it honestly seems like some engineer at facebook was annoyed by SQL, and decide to re-invent it. And that we are all following him or she just because they worked at facebook, which seems unwise.
Maybe the use of types? But what is the difference between a type and something that belong to a table?
Anyway, I am looking now at [GraphQL: The Documentary (Official Release)][1]
> So we invented a query language (GraphQL) to solve an orchestration problem? Sorry but I don't buy this reason.
Exactly. I came here to say the same thing. This seems like an attempt to justify the existence of a thing after-the-fact. And it's a reason which isn't even the stated reason of the project itself!
There is nothing about GraphQL that makes me think someone invented it because they were annoyed by SQL and decided to reinvent it, generally reinvention means a lot of similarity only badly done. You might argue GraphQl is badly done in comparison to SQL, but surely not that it is similar.
Honestly I don't use it so often, but it seems that any query in graphql could be easily and automatically translated to a SQL query. Am I wrong?
There are definitely trying to solve the same problem, aren't they? What are the advantages of GraphQL over SQL?
Please, I really want to know the answer to this question.
The previous answer was "the infrastructure we build around GraphQL is better for microservices", ok I can see that. But it is the only answer? It seems like a little weak reason to create a language so that later you can create a new infrastructure around it.
Normally when I see a language that was created to fix problems somebody had with another language, then the two languages tend to be syntactically similar. I don't see any syntactic similarity.
Secondly I don't believe that GraphQl is meant to map to the relational algebra, which is the genesis of SQL.
GraphQL's benefit seems to be that you should be able to get all the data you need and nothing more with one query, and get it back in the form you want it. In the earlier comment that started this thread the commenter said something like that's what SQL gives you, but from my experience if you want to get back complicated data (3 joins, many properties with same names) your SQL statement is going to be a lot more difficult to write and organize than your GraphQL query. Writing the queries is generally really straightforward and it is quite quickly clear how to structure a query to get what you want, and indeed if it is even possible to structure the query. Ease of declaring what you want is a valid reason for having a new language.
Structuring a query in SQL or most query languages are generally more difficult than in GraphQL - in my experience. This of course does not mean there are not places where it can get complicated - just generally not at query construction time.
I can't really say if having a new infrastructure is a weak reason for creating a new language, I guess that depends on the infrastructure that one needs. Languages are generally really powerful tools for doing things, so if you want to do difficult things with higher productivity than previously you might feel encouraged to create a new language as part of your endeavors.
While I agree that GQL queries are simpler to write, it is also true that they are much less powerful.
I personally don't believe that it is a valid reason for creating a new language and all this infrastructure, but for some kind of project I can see the attractiveness.
