Talk:ADABAS

message: Some one please explain what the difference is between a record and a row in the context of an RDBMS?  Same thing regarding a field and column.  Years ago when RDBMS was all that was out there, the world still described these items as records and fields in my documentation.  Row and column is representational description while record and field are functional descriptions.  Heck, in the RDBMS spec, they real names are touple and attribute...so how are these really differentiators between Adabase and an RDBMS?  If no one can clean that up to be more accurate, or explain to me how it is accurate as is, I'll try to come back later and remove the differences.
:I agree. It would be more useful to point out that: it's index-dependent (unlike relational databases), i.e. you can't use a field as a search key if it's not indexed; its record structure supports 2 methods of de-normalisation, repeating groups and multiple record types per file.Philcha 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Early database systems generally used the term 'record' in the COBOL sense: this is a hierarchic structure rather than a purely flat one. For example the field DATE-OF-BIRTH may include sub-fields YEAR-OF-BIRTH, MONTH-OF-BIRTH, DAY-OF-BIRTH; and fields may be repeated, including "repeating groups". The relational model's emphasis on "first normal form" was explicitly about getting rid of this internal structure within records. Mhkay (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

message: Nonsense. Adabas has locking mechanisms: lock individual records when reading them; lock a whole file so that e.g. other processes can't update the accounts while a trial balance is being run. I'm deleting "dirty read".Philcha 22:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dirty read??????

message: It's "one of the earliest" database products, it's "one of the world's fastest", it offers buzzwords and jargon, and it has unspecified "other leading edge capabilities".  It's "very successful", provides "efficient access", and is "widely used".  It slices, dices, takes out the trash, and leaves a mint on your pillow at the end of a hard day at the office.  "It has been described as 'Post-relational' but 'Relational Like' in its characteristics", which is just an obfuscated way of saying that it is not a relational database, but that its degree of similarity to a releational database has been narrowed down to somewhere between 0% and 100%.  Overall, this is a lot of cheerleading generally unfettered by actual facts, and the few facts which snuck in are all negative:  no normalization, no SQL, no foreign keys.  If this truly is one of the foundation database packages, it deserves a proper respectful historical treatment, with its limitations placed in the appropriate context of the 1970-ish Mainframe / Cobol subculture from which it came.  206.205.52.162 (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It IS one of the earliest DBMSs, together with IMS, at around 1969/1970. Of course those two had a prehistory. Around 1990 when I used ADABAS it was also fast (at the cost of some inflexibility and "repeating groups") but far slower than IMS. Ditlev Petersen (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I just removed some of the cheerleading.–Jérôme (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Vague cheerleading

message: ..or.. Natural, the 4GL: Separate or part of the ADABAS article?
A first cut, starting with a machine translation and lightly edited, is to be "part of." Pi314m (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: NATURAL