Talk:Database index

message: I propose this page be moved to "Database index", to avoid the awkward parenthesized subject and because this is a familiar enough unambiguous term. Consent/dissent? Deco 22:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Index is an appropriate name for the page, just as "Query (database)" would be for a DB query. I rarely refer to a database index by the term "Database Index", I just call it an index. --Rob 20:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also disagree. Awkward parenthesized subjects are a way of life here at Wikpedia. :) Turnstep 23:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move 

message: (Can you tell I've had more than a few questions about these lately?)
# SQL Standard Examples, or even pseudocode.
# Effects of indices on standard SQL operations, not just select.
# Implementations of indices on various database systems
Dunno if I inadvertently missed some of these topics. --Rob 23:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested additions for expansion 

message: The current content of Bitmap index is sparse and much of the page space is occupied by an illustrative data grid.  The content would/could appropriately sit as a section of this article; if expansion takes place, Template:main could be used to cross-reference, a solution I prefer over a bare see-also link (currently included here). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no objections by Saturday, 5/19/2007, I will merge Bitmap index into this article. SqlPac 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bitmap Index deserves to have its own pages.  User:oaf2 May 26 2007
The bitmap index article can remain mostly as is, but the In-memory bitmaps section should probably be documented here, because it's an access strategy for any kind of index, not an index storage format. But currently there's nowhere to put it, until this article doesn't document other access strategies. -- intgr [talk] 06:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion - from 'Bitmap index' 

message: The article dense index was created earlier today (21 Dec) and is not wikified or categorized.  It seems that the content would make a reasonable section in this article, better than a stand alone stub article awaiting clean-up. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no objections by Saturday, 5/19/2007, I will merge Bitmap index into this article. SqlPac 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge suggestion - from 'Dense index' 

message: I'm a bit disappointed that this article contains no information on the actual structure and implementation of database indexes, which is a deep but accessible subject. I'll look at adding this unless it's hiding someplace else. Dcoetzee 20:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent suggestion.  I know that SQL Server uses B-Tree (or is it B+ Tree?) nonclustered indexes.  A discussion of clustered vs. nonclustered indexes, and even so-called "covering indexes", would be appropriate as well. SqlPac 04:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: Yes it does, without an example just blabbers some stuff useless. I will get back to fix it.
~rAGU (talk)
::How is that coming?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucks, but it does need more inline citations!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.215.247.13 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article sucks 

message: The article currently describes "clusterED" indexes where I believe that the right term would be "clusterING" indexes: There doesn't have to be anything special about the clustering index inself, but it is affecting how table data should be stored. Thus, clusterING is more appropriate.
Also, the "clusterING" term is used in the following publications, all of which are rather notable database resources:
* Database Systems - The complete book by Garcia-Molina, Ullman & Widom
* Database Tuning by Shasha & Bonnet.
* The DB2 manual
Troels Arvin (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clustering/clustered 

message: Dictionary.com lists the plural form of index as either indexes or indices. I see this article uses both. I think that one form or the other needs to be picked and used exclusively. Might even be worth noting the multiple plural forms.—NMajdan•talk 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Indices" is only used in 2 places in the article (one of which is a title in a source) so it's obvious that "indexes" has the dominance here. I have changed the article. -- intgr [talk] 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

text: "Indices" is the correct plural in the context of computing. "Indexes" is essentially an Americanisation. "Indexes" is correct when used as a verb (He indexes), but the plural form of the noun "index"  is "indices". --The nell 87 (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every dictionary lists "indexes" as a correct plural form, so you're outright wrong. Whether it's "an Americanisation" or not is irrelevant (sounds like a misguided attmept at discrediting American English?). More importantly, "indexes" is more familiar to people who have seen the word "index", especially to foreign language speakers, so that's what this article should be using. -- intgr [talk] 09:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For me as a non-native speaker its awkward to read indexes. I have looked up English and German dictionaries. Indexes seems to be present in both languages as plural of index. Still it sounds awkward. I prefer 'indices' when I'm talking about database indices, in both languages. Bistjaanodo (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indexes/Indices 

message: * http://www.iso.org/iso/publications_and_e-products/a-z_subject_index.htm
--222.64.22.74 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info from ISO..... 

message: Mainfile does NOT to be sorted ... (Ullman, Principles of Database Systems)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.5.33 (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dense Index 

message: Link to Finnish article should be removed, because the article is about subject headings, not computers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.239.230 (talk) 10:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. -- intgr [talk] 12:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki: Finnish

message: I noticed that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key had a link to Key (computing), which redirects to this wikipedia entry.  But the second paragraph in this entry said: "An index is a copy of selected columns of data from a table, called a database key or simply key, that can be searched very efficiently", which is a VERY misleading definition of "key".  I have changed that text and the link on the Key page, but the redirection from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(computing) should go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_key -- NOT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_index -- and I don't know how to fix that.  Can someone help with that? -- DBooth (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading definition of "key" / wrong redirection from "Key (computing)" 

message: All database deleted,ccBY-AS3.0,BUG 89.198.129.226 (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete database bug,all line my bug boot html Java script, but im 😣 help