Altinity / Altinity/altinity-sql-browser
Composable queries: reference other library queries via {{name}} (CTE-merge)
Dieses Issue hat noch niemand übernommen.
- Vorherrschende Sprache
- TypeScript
- Sterne
- 8
- Forks
- 2
- Ø Merge
- 1 Std. 34 Min.
- Gemergte PRs (30 T.)
- 6
Beschreibung
Summary
Let a saved query reference another saved query in the same library by name, using a {{query name}} placeholder. At Run time we resolve the references and splice the referenced queries in as CTEs (WITH … AS (…)), then run the single composed query.
This gives DRY, reusable query building blocks without needing server-side CREATE VIEW (which requires DDL privileges this read-only SQL browser's users often don't have). Everything stays client-side in the library you already save / export / share.
Motivation
Today you copy-paste common subqueries between saved queries. A "metrics library" pattern — define active_users once, reference it from many queries — isn't possible without server-side views. We want that reuse purely in the client-side library.
Proposed syntax: {{name}}
{{ }} is not valid SQL anywhere, so it won't collide with the language. (Note: a %name%-style delimiter is a non-starter — % is modulo and the LIKE '%…%' wildcard, so WHERE x LIKE '%2023%' would be misread as a reference.) References must be ignored inside string literals and comments.
Mechanism: CTE-merge
Library query active_users:
SELECT user_id, count() AS events
FROM events
WHERE event_date >= today() - 30
GROUP BY user_id
A query that references it:
SELECT count() AS active
FROM {{active_users}}
WHERE events > 10
Expands at Run to:
WITH active_users AS (
SELECT user_id, count() AS events
FROM events
WHERE event_date >= today() - 30
GROUP BY user_id
)
SELECT count() AS active
FROM active_users
WHERE events > 10
CTE-merge (vs. inlining each reference as a (SELECT …) subquery) defines each fragment once and reads cleanly even when a fragment is referenced multiple times.
Resolution rules
- Recursive: a referenced fragment may reference others; collect them all into one
WITHblock. - Cycle detection: A → B → A must error, not loop forever.
- Missing reference:
{{nope}}→ clear error naming the missing query. - Trailing clauses stripped: drop a fragment's trailing
FORMAT …/;before it becomes a CTE (aSELECT … FORMAT JSONcan't be a CTE/subquery). - SELECT/WITH only: refuse to splice an INSERT/DDL fragment.
- Skip strings/comments when scanning for
{{…}}. - Implement as a pure resolver —
expandRefs(sql, libraryByName) → { sql, error }insrc/core/(100% covered) — called on the Run path; the structured ClickHouse client is unchanged.
Pros
- Reuse without DDL rights; stays in the shareable/exportable library.
- "Define once, reference everywhere" building blocks.
- Pure, testable transform that drops into the existing Run path.
Risks / open design questions (feedback wanted)
- Error-position mapping. ClickHouse reports error offsets against the expanded SQL, but the editor shows the original. We recently added caret-to-error for Format; composed queries would regress it unless we (a) show the expanded SQL when a composed query errors, and/or (b) map positions back to the source. How important is precise caret mapping vs. just surfacing the expanded SQL on error?
- Names → CTE aliases. Library names are freeform (
Top Airports — 2023) and aren't valid CTE identifiers. We'd derive a safe alias (sanitize/slugify) and substitute it for{{name}}. How to handle collisions after sanitization? - Rename fragility. References are by human-readable name, so renaming a fragment silently breaks referrers. Options: accept it, auto-update referrers on rename, or reference by stable id (robust but not human-writable). Preference?
- Duplicate names in a library — ambiguous reference. Reject at expand time? Enforce unique names?
- Sharing. A shared link / exported library must include every referenced fragment or it breaks. Bundle transitively on share/export?
- Performance. ClickHouse doesn't materialize CTEs by default, so a heavy fragment referenced N times executes N times. Document it? Offer an opt-in
… AS (…)materialization hint? - "Runs ≠ shows." General debuggability cost of a templating layer. Mitigate with a "Preview expanded SQL" toggle in the editor + editor highlighting/autocomplete for
{{refs}}.
Alternatives considered
- Inline-as-subquery instead of CTE-merge — simpler, but duplicates a fragment used multiple times and reads worse.
- Insert-as-CTE at edit time (a command/autocomplete that pastes the fragment into the editor as a CTE): WYSIWYG, undoable, no hidden runtime expansion, no error-mapping regression — but loses "live" propagation (editing the source fragment doesn't update referrers). Lower-risk way to get ~80% of the value; could ship first and add runtime expansion later if propagation is actually wanted.
- Server-side views — the SQL-native answer, but needs DDL privileges and persists server-side; doesn't fit the read-only / client-library niche.
Scope guard
This is the on-ramp to reinventing dbt/Jinja. Intent is to stop at named query references + CTE-merge (no parameters, no control flow). Parameterized fragments like {{fragment(year=2023)}} are explicitly out of scope for v1 — separate discussion.
Feedback welcome on the open questions above, especially (1) error mapping and the runtime-expansion vs. insert-as-CTE tradeoff.
Beitragsleitfaden
Erste Schritte
- Lies das ganze Issue und danach den Beitragsleitfaden des Projekts.
- Schreib ins Issue, dass du es übernimmst — das erspart doppelte Arbeit.
- Forke das Repository und arbeite in einem Branch.
- Öffne einen Pull Request, der die Issue-Nummer nennt.
Rechercherichtung
Lies zunächst den bestehenden Run-Pfad und den Kerncode unter src/core/. Lege den Umfang und die offenen Entscheidungen für einen reinen expandRefs(sql, libraryByName)-Resolver fest, einschließlich rekursiver Referenzen, Zyklen, fehlender Namen, SQL-Validierung sowie Zeichenketten/Kommentaren. Die Aufgabe ist abgeschlossen, wenn das Design festgelegt, der Resolver vollständig durch Tests abgedeckt und in Run integriert ist, ohne den strukturierten ClickHouse-Client zu ändern.
Vom Indexierungsmodell aus dem Issue-Text verfasst.
Bewertung
- Tech-Stack
- clickhouse, typescript
- Bereich
- backend-api-design, databases
- Issue-Typ
- Feature
- Schwierigkeit
- 5/5
- Geschätzter Aufwand
- Über eine Woche
- Aktivitätsstatus
- Ruhig
- Klarheit
- Muss geklärt werden
- Anfängerfreundlichkeit
- 25/100