Talk:Relational database/Archive 1

message: I found this article very imprecise, calling SQL a relational database.  It's not informed by the underlying theory, instead taking SQL DBMS vendors claims at face value.  I propose to rewrite it entirely, would like to know if anyone has anything against it.
-- LeandroGFCDutra
----
Go for it.  I'd love to see why well-written SQL does not express the relational algebra.
--Damian Yerrick
: "table" at  McKay 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather, the page should be merged with relational database management system, and this page should be a redirect to that. Or the other way round. Both articles talk the same thing. Jay 15:44, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, no one uses the term "relational database model" A relational database is built in a relational database management system which is a database management system that adheres to (some of the) principles of the relational model. All of these terms deserve their own article. Just like an apple is a kind of fruit that is borne on trees in nature using biological processes. McKay 09:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Relational databases should be processed in normal form.
because, for a relational database, it would be third normal form,
that that phrase refers to the normalisation required to create
a data model compatible with relational databases to allow the efficient 
storage of real world data.  processed just is wrong or incomplete.
Psb777 08:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: SQL v relational database

message: Somone has added a book link ("A book by Colin Ritche...") in the "External Links" section. I don't know the book; it may be very nice. But the link goes to Amazon (instead of publisher's/author's site); I feel this kind of advertisement for a specific book store is troublesome. Also: Shouldn't the articles have more content in stead of links, so we don't turn Wikipedia into a link collection? If we start adding books about relational databases, I suggest that the link number be low and concentrated on classics books like [Date: An Introduction to Database Systems] and [Abiteboul et al: Foundations of Databases].
TroelsArvin 07:43, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the link with an ISBN number which makes it more book-seller neutral. Although I agree with you in principle (too many not so very relevant links make the article less informative) I'm a bit wary of completely deleting it. -- Jan Hidders 16:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: book by Colin Ritche

message: This:
:"Strictly speaking, this means a relational database takes the form of a specific collection of data."
does not say what I think is meant.  Anybody?  Paul Beardsell 08:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think is meant? What I think is meant is that there is a distinction between some version of Oracle (which is a DBMS) and the personnel database that is kept by a certain company and managed with that version of Oracle (which is indeed a database and not a DBMS). -- Jan Hidders 22:54, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I have made an attempt. Does it make sense to you now? -- Jan Hidders 00:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takes the form of a specific collection of data? 

message: This article doesn't make it clear at all
a) what constitutes a relational database (what a rel.db. is)
b) what the benefits are
I have a little db. experience, so maybe I could add something, but I don't really know what's best to add? An example? Diagrams? More text (and if so, what)?
I don't think I've got enough experience to basically build a new article from scratch, but I might be able to do something. Shinobu 22:18, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe I could help... 

message: JA: As I wander through the bewildering array of articles that are related in one way or another to relational databases, I'm thinking that the present article might best serve as a generic hub for introducing the subject to new readers in the area.  I wasn't thinking so much of a disambiguation page, though it could perform some of that service, but a conspectus, invitation, outline, overture, overview, precis, preview, survey, synopsis, whatever word works best for the end in view.  Unless I get some contervailing negative feedback, I'll start working along those lines later today or maybe thise weekend.  Jon Awbrey 14:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this article currently is its not accessible. As a newbie to the field, I am having trouble understanding what a relational database is by looking at this article. Explicitly, the definition of "relation" is a bit too esoteric. May be describing it in layman's terms before mentioning tuples would be better. For example "A relation is such and such insert-analogy-or-other-device-here. More specifically, a relation is a set on n-tuples...." Remember folks, an encyclopedia is to cater to the ignorant masses as well as the scholar. ;) -- 127.*.*.1 01:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  JA: I added a new front end.  Let me know if that helps any.  Jon Awbrey 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conversion of this article into a generic hub-intro-overview

message: Whoever rewrites this article--and it needs it--should do so with a naive person in mind. That, after all is the aim of an encyclopedia.  The present article is incomprehensible to this audience.
Two simple sample tables and how they can be joined would be valuable for this group.
Also an RDB should be contrasted with other ways of organizing data (networks, etc.) so the difference can be sensed.
Then references to more formal work either within or without Wikipedia for those with such interest.
Encyclopedias are like real estate: audience, audience, audience.
wgoetsch 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audience 

message: I'm not a database expert, but is the suffix adic or radic?  I'm just guessing that it's like quadradic.  Radix is latin for root; that's why I'm asking.
JA: Monadic, dyadic, triadic, ... are the Greek equivalents of unary, binary, ternary, ... in Latin.  It's convenient to use both, especially when binary numbers are lurking in the neighborhood.  Jon Awbrey 19:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  adic suffix 

message: What makes the relational model a good foundation for databases?  What advantages does a relational database have over other kinds?  Why is it a good idea to normalize a relational database?  Ideogram 01:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why relational? 

message: I'd like to point out that this article is hard to understand. I tried to read it but to someone like me (who knows more than the average person about computers, but not any sort of expert), found this artcule very hard to understand. Perhaps it should be simplified a bit so it isn't so confusng. Speed Demon 22:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: I think we agree that this article needs a rewrite.  I think we agree that it needs to be more accessible.
We seem to disagree on exactly what the rewrite should cover.  Please keep in mind that my proposed rewrite is a first pass and is not intended to be definitive or complete.
The outline of my rewrite indicates the topics I feel should be covered, to wit:  Tables, Primary and Foreign keys, Referential integrity, Normalization, Joins, Indexes, Views, and SQL.  Note I am not claiming only these topics should be covered; there certainly should be a section covering the relational model and why no popular RDBMS's today are truly relational; however I am not qualified to write that section.
If you feel my proposed topics do not belong in a rewrite of this article, please explain why.  Ideogram 04:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are asking the same questions over and over again (word for word, in this case), and that isn't going to change the answers. Time to stop talking and start editing. I'm going to work on the existing article since I think it's a better foundation for this topic than your proposed rewrite. --Craig Stuntz 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not explained to me why theory is the appropriate topic for this article and implementations are not.  Note that I wish to discuss both theory and implementation here.  I have cited numerous sources to back up my opinion.  You have not cited any sources.  If you refuse to discuss this matter with me I will be forced to seek mediation.  Ideogram 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not finding this conversation productive. Are you? It's odd that you would say, "if [I] refuse to discuss this matter with [you]" when I'm the only one who is discussing it with you. But it doesn't seem to be helping to improve the article, so I've decided to put my energy into that instead. We have at least some common ground insofar as we agree that it's too mathematically dense, so I'm going to work on improving that. --Craig Stuntz 14:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deliberately refrained from making any edits to the article while we discuss.  It is not Wikipedia policy to stop discussions and start editing anytime you feel the conversation is not "productive."  If you continue this I will seek mediation.  Ideogram 14:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of no policy which limits editing while a conversation is going on. You and I both agree the article is too mathematically dense; do you really have a problem with me fixing that? --Craig Stuntz 15:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not have a problem with that.  But I interpreted your words  to mean that you were going to stop discussing with me.  If that happens, I will feel free to edit until you start discussing with me again.  Ideogram 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  starting over 

message: google define:relational database
Note the extensive use of the term "table" and the lack of references to "the relational model". Ideogram 04:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the term "relation" does appear in several cases. As does "relational model". Google's definitions aren't guaranteed to be correct, they just find what other people have defined them as. Just because someone doesn't reference relations as tables, doesn't mean that they don't believe it McKay 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  some definitions from the web 

message: Codd's definition is a minority POV, as evidenced by my sources.  The fact that he invented the term doesn't mean he owns it.  His view should certainly be presented, but it should not be the only view presented.  Ideogram 14:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three of the four articles you present directly cite Codd, and none claim he was wrong. The best of those articles, 15 seconds, makes precisely the same distinction between theory and commercial implementation that FOo and I are suggesting. --Craig Stuntz 15:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the cited articles discuss theory along with implementation.  I totally agree that the distinction between theory and implementation should be made, and that Codd should be cited.  However, I feel implementation deserves discussion in this article.  For support, I cite the google search I linked above, in which only one definition other than this one mentions the relational model.  Ideogram 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codd's definition 

message: I like the text you have written and feel it addresses my concerns.  Ideogram 16:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  thank you for your work 

message: You might want to mention that writing SQL that actually depends on column order is universally considered a bad idea.  Ideogram 16:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree it's considered bad form it's also extremely common and required by the standard. I think a discussion of this subject is more appropriate in SQL. --Craig Stuntz 17:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me; it's really a small detail.  Ideogram 19:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQL column order 

message: Can we get rid of this?  It is clearly obsolete.  Ideogram 16:50, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge notice 

message: I haven't been editing on Wikipedia long and I've already butted heads several times so I must say it is a relief when a contentious dispute is settled peacefully.
I do appreciate that I don't have to do any work now that you are doing it all, but we all know you can do a better job than I ever could.  Ideogram 19:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  all's well that ends well 

message: I would suggest some mention of the practical benefits of normalization.  Sorry if I'm getting ahead of you here.  Ideogram 19:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are. :) I just thought it looked wrong to have that section totally empty. Thanks for you kind words, though. --Craig Stuntz 19:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  normalization 

message: BTW I feel this could be a future featured article, but one of the biggest stumbling blocks I've encountered is having enough footnotes/citations/references, so if you could keep an eye out for those, that would be great.  Ideogram 20:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  future featured article