Reasons 1-3 could very well be done with ClickHouse policies (RLS) and good data warehouse design. In fact, that’s more secure than a compiler adding a where to a query ran by an all mighty user.

Reason 4 is probably an improvement, but could probably be done with CH functions.

The problem with custom DSLs like this is that tradeoff a massive ecosystem for very little benefit.

▲

mattaitken 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You’re right RLS can go a long way here. With complex RBAC rules it can get tricky though.

The main advantages of a DSL are you can expose a nicer interface to users (table names, columns, virtual columns, automatic joins, query optimization).

We very intentionally kept the syntax as close to regular ClickHouse as possible but added some functions.

▲

efromvt 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

As long as you don't deviate too much from ANSI, I think the 'light sql DSL' approach has a lot of pros when you control the UX. (so UIs, in particular, are fantastic for this approach - what they seem to be targeting with queryies and dashboards). It's more of a product experience; tables are a terrible product surface to manage.

Agreed with the ecosystem cons getting much heavier as you move outside the product surface area.

	▲	skeeter2020 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Personally I think that's worse. SQL - which is almost ubiqutous - already suffers from a fragmentation problem because of the complex and dated standardization setup. When I learn a new DBMS the two questions I ask at the very start are: 1. what common but non-standard features are supported? 2. what new anchor-features (often cool but also often intended to lock me to the vendor) am I going to pick up? First I need to learn a new (even easy & familiar) language, second I need to be aware of what's proprietary & locks me to the vendor platform. I'd suspect they see the second as a benefit they get IF they can convince people to accept the first.