Talk:Multidimensional database

message: The article starts with a somewhat convoluted sentence, pointing out that there are several different definitions of "Multivalued Databases (MDDBs). It then goes on to tell us how useful MDDBs are for analysis of time series, without telling which of the definitions it is using.
The article then goes on to describe the "data cube" concept, without telling us how it relates to the various meanings of MDDB. 
Next comes a unsubstantiated claim about MDDBs being better than relational databases for some tasks, follwoed by a lot of vague handwaving about the shortcomings. Still we are not told which definition is being used.
Bottom line: Could someon please insert a paragraph after the first one of the form "In the rest of this article, MDDB is taken to mean X".
NisJorgensen 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which definition of the term is assumed in the article? 

message: Lets start this discussion. We should probably start with a taxonomy, splitting between storage architecture, access method, semantics. For example, a hybrid MDDB stores data in a proprietary format, relational indexed and pure relational. Access methods can be MDX or proprietary (are there others?). We should distinguish between a star schema, which is not a MDDB, and a MDDB, even though they may have the same semantics. These are just suggestions and I hope they can be refined in true Wiki fashion. Neil Raden (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split the Article 

message: The whole thing is a hodge-podge of original research and bias. While the topic itself is encyclopedic due to the widespread use of such systems, the content of the article as written has no business in wikipedia.
A useful article might start by defining "dimension" based on a consensus of what has been written about the topic. I don't envy anyone trying to find anything resembling consensus in the literature,  though.
I choose not to rewrite the article myself because my opinion of the entire field is low. The term itself originated as marketing puffery not out of any theoretical foundation and seems to include everything the latest Johnny-come-lately decides to glom onto the term. Most justifications for MDDB mash together a perverse combination of psychology and physical performance without ever really defining a coherent logical model.
Bob Badour (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Looking for the reputable sources/references - for example this IEEE article Multidimensional database technology - it pretty much talks about OLAP only and nothing else (no mention of multivalue databases). So perhaps we should simply redirect this article to OLAP ? Wikiolap (talk) 01:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: OK - nobody opposed - I am making this redirect to OLAP. Wikiolap (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This whole article should be tossed and rewritten from scratch based upon verifiable references 

message: I have removed the WikiProject tag, as this article is either a redirect or deleted. If you oppose, please restore the tag. Thank you, fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Computing