In a way PRQL is just a transpiler to SQL. This can cause its language design to gravitate toward thinking about PRQL features in terms of how they translate to SQL.
PRQL feature -> SQL feature -> relational result
This is flawed because:
- it does not model interactions between features well,
- SQL behavior can sometimes be misleading (the order of a subquery will not persist in the parent query) or even differs between dialects (set operations).
Instead, we should think of PRQL features in terms of how they affect PRQL expressions, which in most cases means how they affect relations.
PRQL feature -> relation | v PRQL feature -> relation | v PRQL feature -> relation | v relational result
Thinking about SQL comes in only at the last step when relation (or rather relational expression) is translated to an SQL expression.