Arguing against query planning by pointing at a quote about databases is wild. Automatic query planning is ubiquitous and hugely succesfull in databases.
I'm surprised that the "query planner" doesn't have a way to eject an opaque object that is the "assembly language of the query" that you can run that it is not allowed to change.
Sure. It's definitely a tradeoff which definitely hurts on rare occasion. I agree that the lack of fallback in most databases is a bit strange. Altogether though the productivity benefits have proven larger than the drawbacks of not defaulting to a query planner.
I've added a clarification in the post to make my position explicit:
> This is not to imply that we should get rid of SQL or get rid of query planning entirely. Rather, more explicit planning would be an additional tool in database user’s toolbelt.
I'm not sure if there was some specific part of the blog post that made you think I'm against automatic query planning altogether; if there was, please share that so that I can tweak the wording to remove that implication.
> I'm not sure if there was some specific part of the blog post that made you think I'm against automatic query planning altogether; if there was, please share that so that I can tweak the wording to remove that implication.
The quote from another article (which I didn't read) starting with "I dislike query planners".
"Against ... altogether" is mildly stronger than I took away from this, more like "generally of the opinion that the tradeoff nearly everyone is making with sql isn't worth it".
Judging by the lack of upvotes other people didn't react as strongly to this quote as I did, so take it as you will.
