Talk:Oracle Database

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Perey (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 22 August 2005 (Cut 'imprecision' out of the intro?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 20 years ago by Perey in topic Cut 'imprecision' out of the intro?

The claim is made that: "Oracle is the world's first RDBMS." 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? Geoff97 18:09, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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.". [1]
"Multics Relational Data Store (MRDS)... is believed to be the first relational database management system ...". [2]
Jay 07:29, 2 Jan 2004 (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: [3] 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. 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. Geoff97 17:49, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The discussion can be continued at Talk:Database management system. I've copied the contents to there. Jay 21:34, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
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. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cut 'imprecision' out 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.

  1. The introduction as it stands is needlessly long and does a bad job of actually explaining what the article is about.
  2. 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 — that we should merely describe the live usage, not complain about it.
  3. It's just bad form to state in the first paragraph that our article is rife with error!

Comments? -- Perey 18:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Reply