Talk:Oracle Database: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:25, 7 November 2007

Latest revision as of 21:06, 4 February 2025

(161 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WPDATABASETalk header}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|

{{talkheader}}

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=mid |software=yes|software-importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Databases|importance=High}}

}}

{{COI editnotice}}

{{to do|inner= [[Talk:Oracle Database/Notes]] contains some guidelines and information related to article development}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|counter = 1

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(95d)

|archive = Talk:Oracle Database/Archive %(counter)d

}}

== Edit Request - 0 on 30-Sept-2019: Add Goal sentence in the first paragrah of the Oracle Database ==

== Fix typo? ==

== version 23.x ==

"1979: Larry Ellison and friends founded..."

the version I downloaded and installed identifies as "23.0.0".

According to entry Oracle_Corporation, it was in 1977. The name change in the same year doesn't make sense. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/65.96.133.16|65.96.133.16]] ([[User talk:65.96.133.16|talk]]) 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

this article mentions the initial version as "23.2.0".

what am I missing? [[User:Erwindon|Erwindon]] ([[User talk:Erwindon|talk]]) 23:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

:With 23.2.0, the .2 is a "release update" version, which is basically a patch version. It's a little more than a normal patch, because sometimes they add new features in the release update. [[Special:Contributions/57.140.28.12|57.140.28.12]] ([[User talk:57.140.28.12|talk]]) 16:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

== The claim is made that: "Oracle is the world's first RDBMS ==

== Why two initial versions listed for v5 ==

Surely, this is not the case. I am unsure which is the first but, amongst others, IBM System R and Logica Rapport were around before Oracle, I believe. Can someone clarify please? [[User:Geoff97|Geoff97]] 18:09, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why are two initial versions listed for v5

:Multics too claims to be the first RDBMS. We need a consensus.

:"...(RSI) was founded in 1979 and released Oracle V.2 as the world's first relational database.". [http://www.developer.com/db/article.php/1582621]

:"Multics Relational Data Store (MRDS)... is believed to be the first relational database management system ...". [http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/mrds.html]

:[[User:Jay|Jay]] 07:29, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

5.0.22 (5.1.17) [[User:GrandPoohBah|GrandPoohBah]] ([[User talk:GrandPoohBah|talk]]) 00:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

RSI was started in 1979. There are references to other RDBMSs before that date, which seems to eliminate Oracle as the first. The question is which was the first? See #10 here for a reference to RAPPORT-3 from Logica:

[http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=636808&jmp=abstract&dl=GUIDE&dl=ACM]

[[User:Geoff97|Geoff97]] 10:33, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:RDBMS is a loosely coined term according to [[Relational database management system]] and there is no database that fully follows the rules of the [[relational model]]. Hence we can remove the "Oracle is the world's first RDBMS" statement from the page or make a modification to make it NPOV. [[User:Jay|Jay]] 16:42, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If you take the strict definition, then there are no RDBMSs, so Oracle wasn't the first. If you take a less strict view and ask what was the first near-RDBMS, that wasn't Oracle either, but we're not sure what was. So, in the statement "and introduced their product Oracle V2 as the first commercial relational database system" I propose to change "the first" to "an early" to make this NPOV. In the bulleted list of firsts towards the end I propose to remove the first RDBMS claim completely. [[User:Geoff97|Geoff97]] 17:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:The discussion can be continued at [[Talk:Database management system]]. I've copied the contents to there. [[User:Jay|Jay]] 21:34, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

== [[Real application clusters]] ==

::Real application clusters is oracle's clustering technology for databases and highly available applications. The database backend is available from multiple nodes which is further extended to have caches across all the other nodes using Cache fusion. Traditionally the database executes from a single box has disks where the necessary datafiles and redo logs are located. For Real Application Clusters as what its called as an expansion of the acronym RAC which is more well known among the Oracle DBA community is used for providing access to the data stored in this database across multiple physical boxes which could be servers from branded vendors or commodity hardware. RAC works on most platforms and Linux certainly being popular one can use this with Redhat (the EL series) or United linux. APAC has growth in the areas for Miracle linux and Asianux for Asian specific distributions.

This was the text in a separate article. I've removed it to here, and made the page a redirect to [[Oracle database]]. If you think that it belongs here, perhaps someone could insert it in the right place (I don't really have the know-how to judge). If you think that it deserves a separate article, then it could be Wikified and replaced. [[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]] ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">&Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf;</font>)]] 22:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

== Cut 'imprecision' of the intro? ==

:''An Oracle database, strictly speaking, consists of a collection of data managed by an Oracle database management system or DBMS. The term "Oracle database" sometimes refers - imprecisely - to the DBMS software itself. The title of this article - and parts of the article content - perpetuate this error.''

I suggest that 'imprecisely' be changed to 'implicitly', and the rest of the intro reworded accordingly, for the following reasons.

# The introduction as it stands is needlessly long and does a bad job of actually explaining what the article is about.

# Since an Oracle database is one managed by the Oracle DBMS, the former term ''implies'' a tie to the latter, and it is this implication that the 'error' in language draws upon. People know what you mean when you talk about an 'Oracle database' and describe features of the DBMS. An NPOV hardliner would probably say that calling this an 'error' is a subjective judgement &mdash; that we should merely describe the live usage, not complain about it.

# It's just bad form to state in the first paragraph that our article is rife with error!

Comments?

-- [[User:Perey|Perey]] 18:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

<<The title of this article — and parts of the article content — perpetuate this confusion.>> muhahahahahaha

:In 'Oracle speak' the word "database" refers to the physical files on the hard disk. The Oracle application when running is the "instance". Personally I think there should be no entry in wikipedia for Oracle_database, it should be moved to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_(Computer_Software)" or such like. [[User:Simonjl|Simonjl]]

== relational database rewrite ==

I am trying to rewrite [[relational database]] and am soliciting opinions. I am particularly interested in bringing in the practical and popular definitions of the term to counter the current article's domination by the "theoretical" crowd. [[User:Ideogram|Ideogram]] 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

== Oracle Firsts? ==

I'm concerned about the list of Oracle "firsts" not being accurate. I've added a "citation needed" in a couple places. The first on Linux claim might be incorrect, since I'm finding references to IBM DB2 shipping slightly earlier. Similarly, the "shared everything" claim falls down with DB2 for z/OS and Parallel Sysplex data sharing, which appeared years before Oracle's implementation.

Could someone check these out more thoroughly?

-- The "first web database" things a bit suspect as well frankly. What does that even *mean*?. Where all those databases used on the web not webby enough? [[User:203.59.162.212|203.59.162.212]] 06:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

== Oracle based on University Ingres? ==

Is the Oracle codebase developed from "University Ingres" or not? I would imagine not, in which case that would be notable in the main argument, because the majority of its compettitors (CA-Ingres, Sybase, SQL Server etc) were. My doubts are really only raised because that on casual inspection Pro*C is remarkably like Ingres ESQL - so is Pro*c developed from ESQL or perhaps ESQL is some kind of industry 'standard' from somewhere? The ESQL page doesn't say where ESQL came from or to which DBMS systems it applies.

== A smaill Doubt ==

I have installed oracle in a harddisk now this harddisk is full due to huge amount of data...

Now i have to attached another harddisk for storing oracle data wat to do

and how to do tat <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/196.192.103.216|196.192.103.216]] ([[User talk:196.192.103.216|talk]]) 11:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

:First you must format the second hard drive. Next you install the oracle db on the second hard drive and you must export data through the oracle data export wizard from the first hard-drive to your new one.[[User:Mamajyot|Mamajyot]] 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

::Guys, this is an encyclopedia, not a help desk.[[User:Afabbro|Afabbro]] 04:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

== "Mid-range"? ==

"Oracle and IBM tend to battle for the mid-range market". While this is true, I would say they also battle for the high-end market - indeed, Oracle, DB/2, and Teradata are pretty much the entire high-end market...unless I'm missing something in the definition here. [[User:Afabbro|Afabbro]] 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

:"mid-range" is a loose phrase with no clear definition - I would suggest it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. [[User:Whimsley|Whimsley]] 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

== Mushy introduction ==

Yes, "Oracle database" can just be a general term for "a database held on one of Oracle's RDBMS products", but this is an encyclopedia. We should stick to defining "Oracle database" as being the RDBMS application and qualify other uses in an appropriate manner. The intro seems pretty hopelessly mushy right now, and I can't think what it must be like for people who don't already have a clear understanding between the different meanings "database" can have.

For that matter, we could do with moving this to a less ambiguous name, but one step at a time. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

: I've now reworked the intro to address these concerns. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 11:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

== Let's move the page ==

This talk page seems to have pretty low activity, but I want to go ahead and move this article from [[Oracle database]] to something closer to the actual product name, either [[Oracle RDBMS]] or simply [[Oracle Database]] (with the 2nd word capitalized), preferably the former. I don't see how a database of any brand would refer to the software that manipulates it, rather than the actual entity on disk. From what I can tell, the base product name is simply Oracle, released by SDL who later renamed themselves to [[Oracle Corporation]]. I see they have other Oracle _____ products, so Oracle RDBMS seems like the best name to use to refer to this specific product. Mentioning the literal database entity at the beginning of the introduction is confusing.

If you see this comment before I act, please give your opinion. I'm in between class right now, so I'll probably do it later tonight (EST time) or tomorrow. --[[User:DJPhazer|DJ Phazer]] 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

: I'm all for this. That Oracle have traditionally blurred the lines between their product names and their generic definitions should not affect us: we should try to define articles as best we can. We don't need a generic article on "Oracle databases", we need one on the Oracle RDBMS product. I'd definitely go with being as specific as we can. [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

:: Oops... well I moved it, as you can see, but I realize, especially because of what they call it on [www.oracle.com], that the official name is '''Oracle Database''', with a capital '''D'''. (I swear I've hit the nail squarely this time!) And now I can't move it to that because the redirect page has a history. Requesting assistance! In the mean time, we/I can still clean up the article.

:: The amusing part is that a great majority of other articles link to [[Oracle RDBMS]] rather than the other two. I have concluded that the official name is simply '''Oracle Database''', while it can also be referred to as the "Oracle RDBMS" or "Oracle database system" or some variation, as long as you use the word '''[[the]]''', referring to the system in this way as a noun, and not a name. --[[User:DJPhazer|DJ Phazer]] 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

::: Heh. Well, per [[WP:NAME]], if it's most commonly referred to as "Oracle RDBMS" then that's where it goes. I work for a company who [[Sun Microsystems|rename all their products every twelve months]], so I feel the pain. The important thing is the the article definitively refers to the ''product'' and not random ''instances'' of the product or various other concepts. (For what it's worth, if a redirect is getting in the way of a page move and it's not contested you can replace the offending redirect page with '''<nowiki>{{db-move}}</nowiki>''' and an admin will come along and delete it to make way for the move. Just for future reference.) [[User:Thumperward|Chris Cunningham]] 10:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

::: I have moved the page for the last time. The page title is now the '''official''' current name of the product. All other names are either '''alternatives''' or '''previous names'''. I believe I'm being correct; add your opinion if you like. Now, time for cleanup! --[[User:DJPhazer|DJ Phazer]] 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Just trying to add HOW-TOs ==

I did some completes (??) installation guide for the latest RDBMS version... why not giving some links on this page ?? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wwwdjtoniofr|Wwwdjtoniofr]] ([[User talk:Wwwdjtoniofr|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wwwdjtoniofr|contribs]]) 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== user objects and objects in OO Programming ==

I'm new to wikipedia, so go easy on me :)

in the fourth paragraph under "Physical and logical structuring" there is a link from user objects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29 . As far as I know, database user objects are different from OO Programming objects. Should this link be here, or is it misleading? [[User:75.26.36.92|75.26.36.92]] 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)