Talk:Object–relational database

message: The object-relational model can offer another advantage in that the database can make use of the relationships between data to easily collect related records. In an address book application, an additional table would be added to the ones above to hold zero or more addresses for each user. Using a traditional RDBMS, collecting information for both the user and their address requires a "join":
If I'm not mistaken, this paragraph means that one would need an additional table in a traditional RDBMS and only one table that also stores the adresses for the users in a ORDBMS. It should be made more clear if I am right or one would need two tables in an ORD, too. Subwy (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small change 

message: The following external link was removed in an edit:
*RDBMS != Object Store — an explanation of differences between relational databases and object stores.
It still is of value, however, even if it was posted on a not-necessarily-reputable site (Slashdot) so I thought I would leave it here on the Talk page for the curious.  -- 192.115.133.116 (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed link still of value 

message: "Overview" para 3, sentence 2:
:ORDBMS technology aims to allow developers to raise the level of abstraction at which they view the problem domain.
Is too vague, unless ORDBMS is defined exactly this way. (It also sounds too much like advertizing). I would guess that the API call requires less conversions and setups, and the language and DBS interact more by objects that are mutually recognized as belonging to both "system" more naturally, but that is just my dream system. How? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison indicate that "raise the level of abstraction" instead means "simpler SQL". I cannot believe that this is the only improvement. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raise level of abstraction? 

message: I saw changes which Rp did on 23 May 2008, regarding Entity-relationship diagram (ERD). He commented that changes as (I am not an expert, but some things in the existing text were inaccurate; I hope this is better.) Changes still exist but really are not correct. The ERD is not special feature of ORDBMS. There is no "aim for the Object-relational database to bridge the gap between conceptual data modeling techniques such as Entity-relationship diagram (ERD) and object-relational mapping (ORM)". Better to return previous variant that was before.--Sergsav (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entity-relationship diagram 

message: It's not clear what is being compared to RDBMS. CasperBraske (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I was not clearly aware about what was being compared. My bad. I'm sorry. CasperBraske (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Comparison to RDBMS" 

message: The code samples here use custom functions and classes without defining them first. This makes it very confusing to understand what is going on. Each function or class should either be avoided or should be defined first so that we know what it does. --71.167.132.146 (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Code samples