Re: Insert vs Update syntax

If you don't like the standard sql implementation, you could use plsql
or any language to make an abstraction layer/wrapper for this
functionality.  Just pass everything as a key/value pair, in an array or
hashtable structure, to your abstraction layer/wrapper, and it can cycle
through the data structure to do the insert or update for you.

In very rough psuedo-code, something like

    create my_data_structure {
           table = employees,
           first_name = sally,
           last_name = smith,
           date_of_birth = 2008-01-01
    }

    call function mywrapper (my_data_structure)

          .....
          function cycles through array, and creates an sql string
dynamically

This may have problems with constraints, foreign keys, etc.


Clodoaldo wrote:
> 2008/2/29, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 01:17:20PM -0300, Clodoaldo wrote:
>>  > When inserting into a table and there are many columns to be inserted
>>  > it is hard to synchronize columns to values:
>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>  > Is there some reason for the insert syntax to be the way it is in
>>  > instead of the much easier to get it right Update syntax?:
>>
>>
>> Because it's what the SQL standard says. If you don't like it I suggest
>>  you take it up with them... But it's a little late to change now I
>>  think.
>>
>
> I know about the standards and I'm not blaming postgresql. I just want
> to know if it is worth to bring the the matter to some responsible
> group.
>
> Regards, Clodoaldo Pinto Neto
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
>
>