Entries in syntactic sugar (3)

Is the q language simply syntactic sugar on top of k?

Not really. There's been a meaningful expansion in the language to support tables and such. If you are curious, take a look at the code in $QHOME/q.k, it will help you understand what portions of q are implemented natively vs in k.

I’ve setup many views based on a single large table. How much of a performance penalty will I pay?

A view is syntactic sugar for a canned query. Unless the view is referenced, it does not expend computational resources.

See also: view, views, :: , .z.b and \b

What's the difference between kdb, kdb+, k, k4 and q?

kdb is the predecessor to kdb+®.  At one point kdb was an application on top of k.   At kdbfaq, we refer to kdb+® as kdb. q is the programming language of kdb. It's a small layer of syntatic sugar on top of k, plus several significant extensions and new datatypes. k4 is simply an old name for q.

See $QHOME/q.k to see how much of q is written in k.