Talk:Database management system

message: The article includes this paragraph, which has no references associated with it. 
"Many of the people involved with INGRES became convinced of the future commercial success of such systems, and formed their own companies to commercialize the work but with an SQL interface. Sybase, Informix, NonStop SQL and eventually Ingres itself were all being sold as offshoots to the original INGRES product in the 1980s. Even Microsoft SQL Server is actually a re-built version of Sybase, and thus, INGRES. Only Larry Ellison's Oracle started from a different chain, based on IBM's papers on System R, and beat IBM to market when the first version was released in 1978."
I have first hand knowledge of several of the products mentoined here and I do not believe they were based on INGRES, as is claimed.   
I do know that SQL Server did begin as a version of Sybase, that is correct.  I do not know that Sybase was a version of INGRES, as is claimed, but it may be.  
It is my belief that Informix shares no heritage with INGRES, (IE: no common code) and was an organic outgrowth of Informix's early products, which were development languages.  Of course people familiar with INGRES maybe have worked on it. (That is not the claim being made here, though.) 
I am equally sceptical about the Non-Stop SQL Claim.  
I'm going to do a little checking up, but I may delete or rewrite this paragraph.  If someone is invested in keeping these claims here it would be helpful if they would source them. 
24.22.76.36 (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: INGRES AS THE BASE OF MANY COMERCIAL DATABASE PRODUCTS -- Is it true?

message: It is a set of prewritten programs that are used to store, update and retrieve a Database.
How it is possible.............  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.211.11 (talk) 08:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced comments

message: copied contents from Talk:Data model
I have the impression, that the whole area of data model, database model and database management system might have to be made clearer and restructured. The practical use of terms often is unclear and leads to inproper use of terms.
Proposal:
; Database model : everything what is related to general design/concepts how data can be structured (relational, hierarchical, network, object-oriented, ...)
; Database Management Systems : technical aspects of the implementation of database models (e.g. languages like SQL, indexing, ...)
; Data model : aspects of designing a specific application (Entity-Relationship- Diagramm, UML, ...)
; Database : the implementation/instance of a data model
--Udo Altmann 15:26, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly sympathisize with your effort to clean up the terminology-mess in this area, but I'm not sure if your solution is the correct one. You seem to suggest to limit the content of articles to a specific meaning but articles should deal with their subject in the wider sense of the word. If the term is often used in a sloppy way and/or has multiple meanings then all these can and should be discussed in the article. So the article on "data model" should discuss all the meanings of the term, including the sloppier ones. Also note that redundancy in articles is not a bad thing and in fact desirable because articles should be more or less self-contained. I'm also a bit wary of the term "database model" because I don't think this is a widely used term. -- Jan Hidders 00:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I would like to point out that currently (April 2005) this article gives Sage Payroll and Microsoft Money as examples of a "database application", but the actual wiki entry for that term redirects to "Database".  This doesn't seem consistent.  -- User:Anonymous13242354 20:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Term clarification needed? 

message: The article now says:
: But a more serious cost is that relational database management systems are unable to store many to one relationships without normalisation: As a consequence Oracle, Sybase, MS SQL Server etc are not well suited to the storage of denormalised data. Other database management systems such as Pick are used instead.
I strongly object to this. It's not only very close to the usual Pick propaganda, and therefore should be formulated in a more NPOV manner, but as it is formulated now also simply nonsense. So I would like to ask the author of this to reformulate it such that (1) the terminology is correct ("many-to-one relationship" is probably not precise enough, and "denormalized" is probably also not correctly used here) and (2) it is made clear that this is a position that is not widely held by the experts and in fact denied by most of them. Of course, good arguments that show I'm wrong are also welcome. :-) -- Jan Hidders 14:57, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perceived shortcomings of RDBMSs 

message: Why leaving out such important area of real world DBMS application from the article? Why is it so "unusual" compared to other examples? Novell's entire product line is based on such kind of DBMS. And Novell is not some small and obscure company. In fact the functioning of our entire network here depend on that kind of DBMS, including human resources and such. In the views of way too many people the DBMS is well suited for some sort of accounting applications only. And all examples in the article are suggesting just the same. But directory service is not just the user database with their passwords as some believe. It's an object DBMS of it's own right, though without so much emphasize on transactional integrity and with high access speed and scalability. Neglecting _any_ reference to DBMS for managing collections of network objects doesn't seem at all like NPOV to me.
:I don't see it as NPOV. I see it as: Somebody has to spend some time writing about directory services as a type of database management systems. Feel free to do that. If you are unsure how to phrase it, then you could propose an addition here in the talk-page before you integrate it into the article.
:As a start, I've added Directory service to the "See also"-list.
:TroelsArvin 12:42, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my complain was about its complete removal from the article without any replacement. I feel fine about moving it to the "See also" at this time. 13:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it was right at the top of the article giving it undue importance.  Seems to me each of us could have our own pet database application area listed (data wharehousing, etc etc) - but not at the top of the article.  I am happy with (any number of) relevant See also links, of course, and I would have acted better to move the link there.  Paul Beardsell 11:53, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Directory service 

message: At a quick glance I haven't seen any evidence for this, not in the BerkeleyDB or the Michael Stonebraker Wikipedia pages, or elsewhere on the web. -- Greenman 28 Feb 2005
Stonebraker founded Illustra, which was later purchased by Informix.  I've never heard of a relationship between Stonebraker and Sleepycat.
Joelm 04 Aug 2005
:The claim that he founded Sleepycat's been in this article quite a while, without much comment. I don't know enough to decide whether to remove it or not. Does nobody have better sources? Greenman 09:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mailed Sleepycat. Stonebraker didn't found Sleepycat (he founded Illustra). Sleepycat was founded by Keith Bostic and Margo Seltzer. I'll correct the article. TroelsArvin 14:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Stonebraker found Sleepycat?

message: I am wondering what the consensus about the appropriate plural form of DBMS should be.  I have style guides that say never to use an apostrophe-S to make a plural (as it is normally used to indicate possession), and a few that say to use it when it would be more confusing not to do so.  I am inclined to use DBMSes, because the pronunciation of the letter S ends with the S sound, which in standard usage is typically pluralized with es (this follows from the same logic as using "an RPG" instead of "a RPG" because the pronunciation of the letter R begins with a vocalic sound).  And there's always DBMSs, which could be confusing, though perhaps not nearly as confusing as Ss (in reference to multiple instances of the letter S).  I know this is really minor, but it should be consistent throughout the article, which requires some decision about which to use.—Kbolino 01:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with "DBMSes". --FOo 07:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree that "DBMSes" would be the best choice.  --Cgsguy2 05:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DBMS's vs DBMSes vs DBMSs 

message: The article says multiple times that SQL violates the model of a true RDBMS. Can we figure out someway to clarify that. Is there an article to link to? Or can we put in more about where SQL violates the model? Considering that SQL is the primary form of DB out there and most uninformed users probably think that SQL is relational.--Parcelbrat 07:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote a bit about that in Relational database. --Craig Stuntz 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not so much that it violates the model of a true RDBMS, it's that SQL gives database programmers the leeway to build other types of DMBSes other than just the relational model.  Same for Access, ORACLE, and most others.  - Mugs 16:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a truly-relational DBMS, SQL is adequate for a query language, but is cumbersome. Saying that SQL violates the model of a true RDBMS is not an incorrect statement, SQL allows for nulls, nameless columns, duplicate rows, ... And We're talking about the SQL language  here. If you want me to describe how MS SQL Server isn't relational, that's a whole different ball of wax. McKay 14:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQL 

message: I think this is unencyclopedic, contributes nothing to the article, and is a waste of space. I think it should go and isn't even worth keeping as a separate "list of" article.  We already have :Category:Database management systems. Any dissent? --Craig Stuntz 13:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. --FOo 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was tempted to work on improving this, since it appears to be in random order and to be missing some major ones (especially the largest, IBM IMS) by subdividing it into Mainframe DB's, early PC Db's, and current PC DB's.  But I'm not sure it's worth the effort.  What value would it add to this article?  206.55.187.170 (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Database Brands 

message: Okay, I've been lurking on the page for a while now, intending to give it some serious treatment (I did a major overhaul to Relational database), but I've only been able to troll vandalizers. It wasn't until today that I gave the page a serious read. Just the opening paragraph got me a little frustrated.
The opening definition defines Database System (which is a redirect to this page sadly enough). DBS and DBMS are *not* synonymous.
* DBMS is the software used to manage the databases. MySQL, MSSQL, Dataphor, MS Access, FileMaker. These are DBMSs. One can use a DBMS to make a DBSs.
* DBSs are programs that accesses a database (and hence, use a DBMS). SugarCRM, any corporate accounting program, human resource programs.
The numbered section under Description, accurately describes a DBMS. Hmm, on second look, the rest of the article looks fine (as a DBMS), but the opening paragraph needs to go into it's own article (under DBS). There wouldn't be a lot of content there (at least initially), but they are totally distinct topics. McKay 04:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What the?!?

message: On the history page of this article, you can see that many recent edits are reverts and undos. Personally, I also find this page hard to read, since it doesn't seem to have a clear structure. So maybe this page should be locked, and/or be reworked too. It's just a suggestion, but I hope some of the people interested in this topic will consider it, in an attempt to clearly explain to beginners what Database Management Systems are, without scaring them off.--81.240.182.77 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The opening definition doesn't ring true to me, perhaps because it reads funny:
  A 'database management system' (DBMS) is computer software designed for the purpose of managing databases based on a variety of data models.
It sounds like every single DBMS manages databases based on more than one data model, but it seems like it should read more like a single DBMS manages databases which are based on one (or possibly more) data models.  Maybe a good sourced definition is in order?  Unfortunately all I have handy are RDBMS books, and their definitions are slanted toward the relational model.  SqlPac (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --FOo (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening 

message: Should low-end database application programs such as Filemaker Pro or Microsoft Access be contrasted in a separate section or article? It seems a little buried in here, and most computer users are probably more concerned about how to use them than the larger systems. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to Database section on applications. -- Beland (talk) 07:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Should low-end database application programs be a separate section or article?

message: To me essential to a DBMS is the concept of maintaining data integrity and backup and recovery.  Data is changed via atomic units of work called transactions which cannot be split up (for instance a bank transfer transaction would include taking money from a savings account and moving the amount to a checking account - either both the credit and debit to the respective accounts takes place or neither takes place).  A DBMS ensures that transactions once completed are never lost by utilizing a system of backup and in the case of a failure recovery.  These are essential features of a fully functional DBMS and only backup is lightly touched upon in the article.  Jmurtha (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DBMS Definition Seems Weak 

message: The history section needs information on the history of database management systems after the mid 1980s. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent history 

message: DBMS: AN INTRODUCTION (By: Manik Sharma)
DBMS stands for Database Management System, is a system which manage the overall working of database. The concept of DBMS was given by Dr. E.F Codd who is also known as guru of Database technology. As from its name it is clear that DBMS is collection of three words:
Database:In simple words database is collection of related data i.e. database is defined as collection of interrelated files/tables. It should be noted that collection should be interrelated.
Management: It is the set of techniques, which are used to manage the overall activities of entire organizations
System:	It is set of interrelated components having a specific goal to achieve. For example: An education system, in this system various interrelated components are Teachers, Students, Non Teaching staff, and the objective of system is to develop the carrier of students
Moved by --Boson (talk) 11:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicated introduction (signed) moved from article 

message: How does this DBMS Works!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.188.139.98 (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: CAN WE PLEASE HAVE PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND SENTENCE STRUCTURE DO THE WRITING IN WIKIPEDIA? 70.64.0.253 (talk)
: It's a fair comment (belongs here though, not in the main article). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section needs copyediting 

message: This is a relevant part of the "current trends", and a concrete one!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.111.77.219 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current trends, where xQuery!? 

message: "Not to be confused with BDSM" at the beginning of the article seems a joke made by a funny kid. Could it be removed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.185.170 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  BDSM 

message: 1) Field:  It stores one type of data element.
2) Record: It is collection of related fields.
3) file: Collection of records.
4) Database: Collection of files is called Database.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.184.53.23 (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements of Database 

message: Well, I managed to condense about 11K out of this article, but it's still overly verbose.  I'm sure the intro and first two sections could be rewritten to be more concise.  Certainly the "Database storage" section goes into a lot of detail which can probably be deferred to linked articles. In the long run, this article could probably be combined with database to make a better article that is shorter than the sum of two, but both need to get cleaned up separately first, I think. -- Beland (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave a big push of consolidation and merging; this is now redirecting to Database. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length