Talk:Ingres (database)

message: This article seems to get into details that are way beyond what should be in an encyclopedia. The information here should tell people what the product does and where it comes from, it shouldn't contain details instructions on how to install software patches. Mhkay (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  This is (was) one of the most bizarre articles I've ever encountered in Wikipedia.  I moved the History section to the top, just after the lead section, thus pushing the excessive detail down.  It looks like someone was trying to write a user manual for Ingres; that kind of detailed stuff should be moved to Wikibooks. — QuicksilverT @ 20:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree, the guideline in particular is WP:NOTHOWTO and others that "Wikipedia is not". It is almost all uncited anyway, sigh. A basic overview with a couple sources would be best. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Did it. Not only no citations, (I added some) but what about keeping it current.  Pi314m (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Level of detail

message: I never heard the term 'fat cursor' that is referenced here - a google search for "fat cursor" postgres or "fat cursors" postgres only returns hits on the wikipedia, and other wikis...Perhaps the term isn't correct after all? 194.114.62.71 (talk)
::I found a Microsoft use of the term and added it as a REF. Pi314m (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat Cursors 

message: I think that University Ingres, Ingres (Computer Associates) and Postgres should have separate articles. 132.205.45.110 18:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, eight years later and still not there. PostgreSQL is there now as it should, and is much better sourced than this one. What I propose is an article on the current entity Actian that summarizes the previous commercial history. Not sure I will have time to develop it, but it seems worth a try. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: Ingres not a "database"; it is a database management system, which is normally shortened to the acronym DBMS.  A database is entirely different from a DBMS.   Just as one would not refer to a file system as a "file", one should not refer to a DBMS as a database.
This issue is somewhat clouded by the fact that Ingres Coporation has recently officially designated its product by the name Ingres Database 9.2.  In my view this simply perpetuates an ill-informed misnomer and it should not be encouraged here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.118.245 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment does in fact seem accurate. Yes, to be precise, this Ingres is a software system that manages databases, while "database" is a particular collection of such data that is being managed. However, it is (perhaps sadly) often misused as shorthand to just say "database", and it is sufficient for disambiguation purposes. There is no single database named "Ingres", but only one family of software with this name that manages databases (albeit many releases with a long history). So best idea might be to make it clear in the article body, and not spend time on another move battle. W Nowicki (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect article name 

message: I can't follow your justification for this edit. You've removed a merge template from one page, with "merged to Actian instead", but that merge doesn't seem to have taken place. I see the 'half-baked' redirect from Rhadow which you very reasonably reversed, but that does leave a merge uncompleted and no argument for the alternative target. Any thoughts on the current status? Worth re-instating the initial merge template (which is still up on Applications-By-Forms but not here)? Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't clearly remember this. I suspect I was interrupted while in the middle of it. I have reviewed revision histories and it looks like Actian is the best merge target for Applications-By-Forms since Applications-By-Forms is mentioned on Actian but not on Ingres (database) (except for a See also link). I'll fix up the merge banners. I'd have to look a little deeper to decide whether this merge is a good idea. I simply suggested it as an WP:ATD when Applications-By-Forms was WP:PRODded. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge involving Applications-By-Forms 

message: I know a fair amount about the deep history of computer science, but databases are one of my larger blind spots. Nevertheless, it's rather easy to see than Ingres is bigger than Actian, and that the lead must cover this history, too. 
New lead material: 
In its early years, Ingres was an important milestone in the history of database development. Ingres began as a research project at UC Berkeley, starting in the early 1970s and ending in 1985.
 During this time Ingres remained largely similar to IBM's seminal System R in concept; it differed in more permissive licensing of source code, in being based largely on DEC machines, both under
UNIX
 and VAX/VMS,
 and in providing QUEL as a query language instead of SQL. QUEL was considered at the time to run truer to Edgar F. Codd's relational algebra (especially concerning composibility), but SQL was easier to parse and less intimidating for those without a formal background in mathematics. 
When ANSI preferred SQL over QUEL as a standard as part of the 1986 SQL standard (SQL-86), Ingres became less competitive against rival products such as Oracle until future Ingres versions also provided SQL. Many companies spun off of the original Ingres technology, including Actian itself, originally known as Relational Technology Inc., and the NonStop SQL database originally developed by Tandem Computers but now offered by Hewlett Packard Enterprise. 
I've added two references, neither ideal, but both mitigated by having their own solid internal citation structure (one via quotes, one via reference notes). Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the literature, and so I must defer to someone else to resolve these references down to their internal sub-references. Some of what I gleaned from those sources parallels material already present here, insufficiently cited (so you can view my blogish citations either as glass half full, or glass half empty, as you wish).
I know for myself that the expanded lead text provides exactly the kind of historical gestalt that makes a subject intelligible on a quick glance. Short version: Ingres got Betamaxed by IBM and Larry Ellison. 
As I usually sign off after larger additions, I'm a tumbleweed editor contributing on the way by. I rarely return. Revise or revert at will. 
One last remark: I don't know much about databases, but I do know enough to use Postgres almost exclusively to host my own applications, given the option. Good god how I love software that doesn't fall over at the first mild gust of adversity. — MaxEnt 00:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead must summarize; Ingres is bigger than Actian 

message: The pronunciation given ( ) seems unlikely - I would expect it to be   with emphasis on the first syllable. John Womble (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation