Talk:List of relational database management systems

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of relational database management systems article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases articles

Systems Low‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems.

Proprietary Software/Free Open Source software

We should standardize the display.

Possibilities include manufacturer then product. Example:

IBM DB2
Microsoft Access

or Product (manufacturer)

DB2 (IBM)
Access (Microsoft)

What do you think? --Doc0tis 18:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use whatever the title is of the page we are linking to. Turnstep 20:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they should be the same, but then should we go ahead and rename the pages? I bring this up because DB2 is made by IBM so it would be correct and fair to list it (and all the other companies) and not just list Microsoft and Sybase as vendors. --Doc0tis 20:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Microsoft does market their product as "Microsoft Access" and not simply "Access" while DB2 is marketed (and known) as "DB2". Are their other examples? Turnstep 20:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. How about this as a possibility

DB2 (IBM)
Microsoft Access (Microsoft)

--Doc0tis 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

What, exactly, is the difference between a "major" and a "minor" RDBMS? ISTM that this should either be based on a quantifiable number (sales? install count? feature set?) or be removed altogether. My suggestion would be to simply divide the list into two groups: DBMSs still in production and DBMSs no longer actively developed. Craig Stuntz

I've changed the classification, based on software license. --minghong 20:36, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The existing split into “Commercial” and “Free or Open Source Software” is unsatisfactory for a number of reasons:

A number of open-source DBMSs are commercial ventures (e.g. MySQL).
The phrase "Free and Open Source Software" would usually be interpreted as FOSS, whereas the list includes a few non-Free-but-gratis DBMSs.

Consequently I'm re-splitting into Open-Source, Freeware (proprietary), and Proprietary not available without cost (non-gratis proprietary, proprietary other than freeware). It might be useful to get a list of commercially-supported DBMSs (with link to commercial support providers), but such advertizing may be contrary to wikipedia guidelines.

On the matter of whether to try to put some “major” DBMSs near the top: I've added a link to the DBMS page for people wanting a list of DBMSs that are major or typical or otherwise prominent.

Pjrm 12:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

This page needs to be moved back to the one it was, "List of relational database management systems." The phrase "SQL database management system" is not in common use, and will only confuse people wo come to Wikipedia. The RDBMS page itself states that the common interpretation of RDBMS includes databases using SQL. It also has a long history of such use on Wikipedia. The current list of "true" relational databases has been redirected to "List of truly relational database management systems." In order to preserve all histories, however, this page needs to be restored to its original name. Turnstep 15:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The move back makes the information incorrect, as no SQL DBMS is relational.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this change; The article split was also erroneous but I won't push it. Wikipedia shouldn't bend over backwards to conform to strict academic definitions. Rhobite 15:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'Strict academic definitions', at least in this case, are the only correct ones.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the split to "truly?" I'm not wedded to that, but thought it might forestall a reversion war from the person who decided to start all this mess in the first place. Turnstep 16:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mess at all, just fixing misinformation spread by vendors' propaganda.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I don't believe that the articles should have been split into "SQL" and "relational" in the first place. Outside of academia, tools like Oracle, MSSQL, DB2 are commonly considered to be relational. I think the rename ("SQL" -> "relational", "relational" -> "truly relational") is a good solution though. Rhobite 16:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is still incorret. If you go this way, you will have to rename most of what is currently 'relational' to 'pseudo-relational'.

One must judge a communication medium by the issues he knows best. The approach taken here really tells me Wikipedia is a mess.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this move is to happen, we probably need to show support by voting, so...

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

Support - this is my request, explanation above. Turnstep 20:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'm going to clean up after more of User:Leandrod's mess Real Soon Now. --R.Koot 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The move has been completed, taking into consideration that 3 users directly commenting on the move have expressed support for it, and that the consensus was established for well over a week. --HappyCamper 23:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I'm late to the party, but redefining common terms to fit one's personal beliefs is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — It is not a personal belief, it is the correct meaning of the term. Just check the current article and you will see SQL does not fit the criteria for a relational system.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 15:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--

List of Truly Relational DBMS's

I was wondering where the definition of a truly Relational Database Management System was? --Doc0tis 21:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be on Relational Database Management Systems (under Current Usage) but I think a comment at the top of List of truly relational database management systems would be valuable. Personally, I think the distinction is sufficiently small that that page should really be a section on this one rather than a separate page with no explanation of the distinction JohnGray 13:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge? - Yes!

The current 'list of truly RDBMSes' is a joke, and a stub at best. E.g.: Why is it that Oracle 10g is categorized as a truly relational RDBMS. And how do we know for sure that Dataphor really implements all Codd's (12?) rules for truly relational DBMSes? I suggest that the list of "truly relationa RDBMSes" be removed. TroelsArvin 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; in my opinion you can just go ahead and do it. If you think it's controversial you could AfD it, but as far as I can see nobody has ever expressed support for the original fork. --Craig Stuntz 14:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Oracle 10g has already been removed from that list. I think keeping them seperate is probably a good idea, as some people truly seem to get upset about the distinction between the two. But if you want to try and merge those in, I'm not opposed. Either way, let's get that ugly merge notice off the top of the page. Turnstep 16:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical

Why is Oracle RDB listed under Historical databases?
It is still being developed by Oracle and is used by quite a few different sites. EAA 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Gladius DB (?)

I would like to add the article for Gladius DB, I have made a draft User:Legolas558/Gladius_DB. Considering that I am the author I would first like to hear community's opinion. I do not know if the database is enough widespread but it currently hits better than any other flatfile db on sourceforge. --Legolas558 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern that it seems to be pre-release (v. 0.5), at least judging from the SourceForge page. --Craig Stuntz 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No...it has recently exited its beta stage, now it is very stable. It is not yet v1.0 because some parts are unfinished but it is already much better than TxtSQL --Legolas558 10:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

any chance it can be added now? It is ranking much better than TxtSQL (2782 vs 12250, see [1] vs [2]) the User:legolas558/Gladius DB should be moved into Gladius DB --Legolas558 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

R:BASE

I would like to see R:BASE added to the lists and appropriate comparisons. I have been using R:BASE since 1983 and have found it to be a very friendly, powerful, and useful product. Wbrake 15:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup?

What's the specific reason for the cleanup tag? -- Mikeblas 19:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical (II)?

It would be helpful to specify the exact inclusion criteria for "historical" entries as opposed to main list entries (maybe in a hidden note), as there have been occasional overlaps with the main list and unclear situations for some DBMS in the past. Is "Historical" meant as "out of development", or "out of maintenance", or "out of common usage", or whatever other definition is occasionally used for that distinction? I have no horse in that race either way, just to clarify current and future handling of such cases a bit more.GermanJoe (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]