Talk:Database

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases.
Start rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

I Am The greatest Person EVER!!!!!!

Contents

[edit] Database Models

Could a specific, real world example of each model type be added? Network model has one, but not the others. --Girl2k (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Database as Cultural Form

Anonymous user writes: "I think this section is weird and should be deleted." I've moved this from within the piece itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girl2k (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello BURNHOLME SCHOOL :)

[edit] Database Development Platform

Regarding the last section, what is a "database development platform" and why is this section here? Could a lead-in be added? --Girl2k (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Term

The Oxford English Dictionary lists 1962 as the first use of this term, thusly: "Technical Memo. (System Development Corp., Calif.) TM-WD-16/007/00. i. 5 A ‘data base’ is a collection of entries containing item information that can vary in its storage media and in the characteristics of its entries and items." Does this trump the citation given in the current article, which dates it in November 1963? --Girl2k (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merging dbms and database?

I think that these two should be merged. The overlap is already very big and the difference that there strictly is can be explained in a small paragraph. Anyone have a strong opinion on this? -- Jan Hidders 16:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)[[Image:
== [['tarantado ang database']] ==]] testing...

Yes. A database and a DBMS (Database Managements System) are two very different things. A database, as I am sure many readers will be aware, is a particular collection of data and a DBMS is the (usually automated and computerised) system for managing any (compatible/normailsed) collection of data, any given dataset or database. Paul Beardsell 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Database is to DBMS what book is to librarian. Database is to DBMS what an art collection is to a gallery, what postage stamps are to album, etc etc Paul Beardsell 09:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A database is a set of data files that can be edited by a data base management system (DBMS). This is similar to the relationship that a document file has with a word processor. The document file can be edited with the word processor (if it is in the right format). A word processor cannot be edited by a document file.

As defined, databases are collections of data, not information. A knowledge base, often used to describe help file systems and FAQ lists, is a collection of files that have been pre-selected and edited for an audience based on pre-assessed use or need. Databases contain information in raw forms (data) like ages, times, or prices that, by themselves, are not meaningful to an observer. Knowledge bases are made up of information (processed data) gathered or compiled by an outside agent (human or software).

[edit] Database application

I was redirected to "Database" from "Database application". Is that right? It's not consistent with the description of the latter on Database management system. -- anon 19:43 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Database State

I don't believe that the term "Database State" should be included in this entry because it is not commonly used at all. I say this as a privacy advocate and a person in the process of organizing a legal symposium on just this topic. That said, the inclusion of such scarcely used terms (really... just run a Google on it) does not lend itself to a better understanding of what a "database" is. Just an opinion.

I agree completely. This seems to be a political statement made by an anon user at 80.42.46.0 (addition made 05:12, 17 February 2005 if anyone is interested). That user also created a Database State entry as a redirect to Mass_surveillance. This does not belong here. Perhaps it belongs on that page. I'm going to remove it. --Derekian 28 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

[edit] Flat Model

Does the section on "Flat Model" really belong here? OK, lots of data is stored in spreadsheets, CSV files, and the like - but that doesn't make it a database.

Mhkay 21:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it belongs. An example is a database of bibliographic information. A single table can suffice for many such databases. 70.109.52.109 17:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

So where does the concept come from? Do you find it in database textbooks nowadays? Most of the google hits on '"flat model" database' are copies of this article. I'm not saying it's not a valid concept, I'm just suggesting that it's not a part of the accepted taxonomy, which is what we should be describing here. Mhkay 14:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

You can find the concept defined by Googling <define: "flat file">. Flat files have been around forever. The earliest databases were flat files. They predate CODASYL. I don't know about textbooks, or taxonomy. In the 1970s I worked with a flat file database which had 85,000 records and was accessible online throughout the US. Probably, no one knows how many flat file applications exist today.
This article is about database, not DBMS. With any relational DBMS, users can easily create flat file databases, and I suspect many of them are being used for simple applications today. AnonUser 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Flat model is appropriate. They don't just predate CODASYL, they predate Jesus Christ by several thousand years. Any table of rows and columns containing information is a flat file database, even if it's just a census containing two pieces of information, the city and the number of people in the city. - Mugs 19:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica lists flat as one of the key database models. The consensus, as I read it here, is that the flat model should be included. Do we agree? --Girl2k (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Associative Database

There is nothing about associative databases. I've read a few articles on the net that explained the underlying theory but I really want to know how it's put into practice. 80.217.64.114 20:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] ACID property may favor a particular model of database design

 Atomicity - command batching via a monitor (which wraps access to the database).
 Consistency - apply invariants to database tables. 
 Isolation - threaded execution.  
 Durability - transactions are permanent (can't be redone or undone, thus a logfilesystem would disobey Durability).

This leads me to believe that either the explanation of the ACID property on the wikipedia page is inappropriate, the concept of the ACID property is shallow, I don't know what I'm talking about, or this is a simple set of rhetoric that was created by paid evangelists to support a particular vendors database design, such as ORACLE. For instance can you name object oriented databases that satisfy the ACID property, or is the ACID property unfairly biased toward Functional Languages and Relational Databases.

I think you are confusing your terms a bit. A database being object-oriented is not related to its being ACID compliant. If there is a question in the above paragraph, please restate it. Turnstep 23:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
ORACLE is a DBMS, not a database. - Mugs 19:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LDAP and hierarchical models

Might be worthwhile mentioning the hierarchical model. And the model used by LDAP.

[edit] Sourcing?

Decent article, but pretty light on sourcing. I may need to tag it to encourage editors to cite sources, if no editors step up to the plate. Remember, sourcing is important, even if you *know* what your writing (i.e. you're an expert in your field), otherwise you might get your edits flagged as Original Research and possibly removed. Thanks. --NightMonkey 00:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unencyclopedic bits

I think the list of brands is unencyclopedic, contributes nothing to the article, and is a waste of space. I think it should go and isn't even worth keeping as a separate "list of" article. We already have Category:Database management systems.

Likewise, the "See also" section is way too long. There's already a couple navigational templates at the bottom of the article which do more or less the same thing.

Any dissent? --Craig Stuntz 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Craig: I agree: it's unencyclopedic, and it just keeps growing. It's like Wikipedia has become the yellow pages. --Girl2k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Normal Forms

Added section on normal forms, as understanding normal forms is absolutely vital to proper database development and design. - Mugs 19:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I sourced the normal form section. Not sure of the right format, so I borrowed from a couple of examples I found at nuclear weapon and uranium. - Mugs 19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Database virus

Last time I used database it installed 7 trojan horse viruses into my computer. Does anybody know how to fix this?

Database is not a program, it is a type of program. So without more information, nobody can help you fix that. -- Sam Barsoom (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belucci ??

...And exactly why is this article named "Belucci" ??? 83.241.174.186 16:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorted. Back at the right name. Some vandal moved the page as their idea of a joke. I mean, April Fools was yesterday, guys. Cheers, Moreschi Request a recording? 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] too large?

the "database" wikipedia page appears to be too large created a "database models" page and summarised database models section, advise that it is summarised further

A link to Database_model should be placed and all the discussion about models should be moved/merged to/with respective model. Or if the summary is judged to be good should be moved to a new page (.e.g Database_models_summary) and link to it.

[edit] Databases??

I am not saying anything bad about them. But can you give a little more detail on databases??? But man, what person would spend so much time on the internet gathering data, and half of it isnt even correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.212.95.162 (talk) 12:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

WHAT ELSE?

[edit] MS SQL Server

Is it relevant to label Microsoft SQL Server as "derive from Sybase"? That was almost 20 years ago, and the modern product is almost entirely rewritten and quite different. DonPMitchell 01:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Specific historical information like that is more appropriate in a history section of that specific database implementation than in a general article about databases. ChorizoLasagna (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "In <subject domain>"

Maybe this is just my personal opinion, but starting off an article with "In <whatever subject domain>, a <subject of this article> is ..." is not really nice. Maybe it is still encyclopedic, but seems just a little bit, not meaning to be pejorative, but sort of immature. Anyway, I changed it in the opening sentence of this article. (Maybe I should consult the Manual of Style - I'll do that). Peashy 13:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Security

It seems to me that this paragraph doesn't really belong in this article.

In the United Kingdom legislation protecting the public from unauthorized disclosure of personal information held on databases falls under the Office of the Information Commissioner. United Kingdom based organizations holding personal data in electronic format (databases for example) are required to register with the Data Commissioner.

This article describes databases in a technical sense, but that paragraph is about legal requirements for database security. That's a different subject altogether. Colonies Chris 19:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It does seem out of place. It does not help me understand databases any better that much is for sure. -- Sam Barsoom (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] when using "database" to include dbms ...

In the intro paragraph the sentence: "When the context is ambiguous, however, many database administrators and programmers use the term database to cover both meanings."

seems to me it should be when NOT ambiguous ... Fholson 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As a cultural form?

This section of the article is certainly not elaborated. I do not see how a gigabytes-sized collection of data about customer purchases or business locations is a literary genre akin to the epic. Are these literary critics referring to something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.246 (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course, they are referring to something else! They are referring to databases that are composed of, for example, the entirety of everything Walt Whitman every said or wrote or read, etc. I didn't want to go on too long in the entry. If people are interested, they could read the citations--at least that's what I thought. The short paragraph (in a long entry) is meant to point out that databases aren't only used for commercial purposes. Some people think they are a new form for expressing things. In an encyclopedia I thought that might be worth mentioning.--Girl2k (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Then I think there might be a better way of saying it. I think it would be good to draw attention to the fact that databases are used for corpora of literary texts (or images, sound recordings, etc) without this talk of "cultural forms" which feels rather out of place in an article that in other respects is technical rather than sociological. Mhkay (talk) 21:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I took out the reference to the literary critic, which seemed to be the problem for you. Hope it helps. I don't think an encyclopedia article should be "technical" to the exclusion of all else. In fact, shouldn't they be well rounded and complete rather than partial? --Girl2k (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Relational model" first paragraph

Does anyone mind if I delete the first paragraph under the "Relational model" heading? It doesn't seem (to me) to fit in with the rest of the section. Its description of "relation" pretty much conflicts with the following paragraph. But perhap[s I'm missing something. Northernhenge (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly a bit messy. Apart from anything else, the section has a high overlap with the "relational model" section of Database models, and has no reference to the free-standing article Relational Model.
I think the paragraph is hinting at the existence of a mathematical relational model which is rather different from the tables-and-columns model used in engineering practice. But is would be better to state this clearly and refer the reader to a different article for the mathematical treatment.Mhkay (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now deleted it and added a reference to Relational Model. Northernhenge (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schools database

Someone dumped the following at the end of article:

In relation to a "Schools Database" Sites, such as Wikipedia, Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines are a much better choice for several reasons.

A.) School Database's are expensive to keep up with. And for the most part no one goes to the sites in the first place. On the other hand, Search Engines are Free of charge to use indefinatly. Schools could save money to go to other things they need more like building repair and textbook purchases.

B.) School Databases have no appeal to todays youth. Kids are not going to want to go look up information on some old "School Database". Computer Users grew up with google, yahoo, msn. Its like an addiction that kids will not easily break out of.

In Short, Google\Wikipedia Rocks. School Databases, Do not.

It might have some merit somewhere, but not where it was and not in the nonwiki format. I have removed it from the article. If someone wants to look after it . . . sorry but I have no time or real understanding of the above issue. Peet Ern (talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Remove List of Brands?

I think the list of brands is unencyclopedic, contributes nothing to the article, and is a waste of space. I think it should go and isn't even worth keeping as a separate "list of" article. We already have Category:Database management systems.

Likewise, the "See also" section is way too long. There's already a couple navigational templates at the bottom of the article which do more or less the same thing.

Any dissent? --Craig Stuntz 19:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Craig: I agree: it's unencyclopedic, and it just keeps growing. It's like Wikipedia has become the yellow pages. --Girl2k (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to make the argument for why this list of database brands should be in an encyclopedia article about databases? --Girl2k (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added a Main Article link to Category:Database management systems. I agree the list should be removed from this article. It is useful to have a list of all the DBMS products that have Wikipedia entries, as otherwise I'm not sure how you could search for them easily, but this is not the correct place. The Category page does need quite a bit of work though. Maybe the list in this article should be moved to a "work in progress" category on the Category page??? --Northernhenge (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel that it's one thing to have a table comparing each database server, but another to have a list of links that just go to the main article. Perhaps we should do that here? Psychcf (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what's being suggested ... Why not just do it! --Girl2k (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] singular or plural ?

"...and changes often demand a major programming efforts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.245.62 (talk) 03:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)