December 17, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Defining a Database
December 18, 2009 at 1:26 am
No man, there is no way we should redefine what we think a database is. What we should do is educate the people who don't know what a database is and use it as a generic term for data storage.
That way the industry standard could be exactly that, rather than a collection of words that most people pretend to understand when in fact they have no clue.
December 18, 2009 at 4:01 am
Chris,
According to "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48", a database is simply "an organized body of related information". No mention is made of the kind of technology supporting the maintenance of the information stored within it (if any). To me even a telephone directory or the index cards of the Library of Congress pre its computerization qualify as a database, don't you think so?
Regards,
Jan
December 18, 2009 at 6:15 am
I have to agree with Jan.
Any techinical discussion of an "item", will always be at odds with the worldy perception of the item. That is not wrong just the way it is.
More than the size of the databases in the article, I wonder what vendor, how many DBAs, # disk drives, etc.
<><
Livin' down on the cube farm. Left, left, then a right.
December 18, 2009 at 6:39 am
I disagree with the artificial distinction between 'database' and 'file system'
The only real difference is one is under full control of the database engine, and one is under indirect control through the operating system. If we had a database storing those binary files as blobs in leavess, we'd consider it a database.... if we had a database which had pointers to the leaves, we'd consider it a database... why not when the leaves are files in the file system (even the file system directory structure is itself a database).
I think a file system, dedicated to database contents can indeed be considered part of the database.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
December 18, 2009 at 7:23 am
I tend to agree with Jay. I think a database is kind of a collection of information, and a file system, as well as card catalog qualify. So what do we use for the relational store? Instance works for the software, is it a RDB that we need to use in our own vernacular?
Or something else? how do we talk with a manager that considers his Excel/PowerPivot files part of the database?
December 18, 2009 at 7:49 am
In the circles I frequent, there's an implied distinction between "data base" and "database". Although the dictionary term isn't defined in terms of the technology used, when you say "database" to any DBA, programmer, IT guy or enthusiast 99 times out of 100 they are going to think SQL Server or MySQL or Oracle or PostgreSQL or whatever their RDBMS of choice is. You don't have to look very far in the English language to see words that, in context, have very different meanings than their dictionary definition.
That said... I don't think it's a matter of redefining the term itself, it's just a matter of discerning the intent of the term based on the context in which it is used.
December 18, 2009 at 7:57 am
Unfortunately for we IT professionals, end users think of a spreadsheet as a database, and Jan's posted definition supports this.
Even if we try to explain how an RDBMS is so much more than Excel or Access, they generally don't care about the nuance, no matter how important that nuance is to us.
I guess we're going to have to sell "RDBMS" and "Relational Database" for them to understand how much more it really is.
December 18, 2009 at 8:12 am
My manager once explained to me that for most people, a database is just an imaginary magic big black box. A chunky piece of expensive hardware that they expect to "just work" and correct most errors by itself. Spitting out nicely formated Reports without coding, managing itself.
He warned me I should not try to educate them, they would be confused at best, maybe even angry to learn about complexities they rather would not like to know about. Frustrating but very true.
December 18, 2009 at 8:47 am
Are OLAP cubes considered database? Is OODBMS a database? I think we can protect our concept of RDBMS using exact terminology for exact meaning. Let's accept that the general public has heard of 'the database' and has been "putting stuff in the database" for long enough that they've made it their own - no matter what us pedantic systems people think. I don't think it's worth the effort to fight certain ideas (like "surfing" the internet). When someone says they're going to download their pictures to their computer, do they mean upload? We have a "proper" use in mind, but isn't it arbitrary? The English language has many ambiguous terms that we resolve in context. Forcing people to define "database" would be like trying to define "meeting" - is it a meeting even if nobody meets face to face? As long as everyone understands at point of use, it doesn't matter how volatile the term.
December 18, 2009 at 9:10 am
How often do we refer to a "CPU" as an entire computer case when really all it is is a component inside?
Similarly, a lot of people refer to the words "drive" and "disk" as being interchangable, even though they really aren't.
Mind you, I'm not saying I agree with this; I'm just saying that that's the way it is. Almost all of us here will understand the difference; most laypeople won't.
Personally, I don't agree with redefining the term. As one previous poster said (and I agree with this viewpoint), there should be a distinction between database and filesystem. Nevertheless, I also resign myself to the reality that people who don't know any better will refer to them as the same thing, no matter how much correcting I try to do.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
December 18, 2009 at 9:13 am
Ack . . . I just re-read the previous postings. Shows you what happens when I skim through posts rather than absorbing them!
I can definitely see your point about "database" being "a collection of data." At the same time, should we talk about the distinction between a traditional database and a collection of files? I see what you're saying about referring to all these entities as "databases," but at the same time, I think a distinction should be made.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Check out my blog at https://pianorayk.wordpress.com/
December 18, 2009 at 3:59 pm
It's a tough question.
My personal thought is, the English language being rather flexible in many instances, that we should define the context each time we need to explain it to permit someone to understand.
For example: If I were to explain to my manager how a recent issue had been resolved (assuming it was a database issue), I would use whatever terms necessary to make sure my manager understood I was referring to the SQL instance on our server.
However, if I was talking with my manager about a large collection of information (say a library index system), I would still use the term database if it would help her to understand how I was looking at it.
I think if we are clear regarding our context, the world's definition of Database shouldn't matter too much.
Just my 2 cents.
December 20, 2009 at 8:36 am
A couple of points:
It is DBAs who coopted the english word "data base". Removing a space doesn't cut it, linguistically. 🙂
We're the Johnny-come-latelys so the "uneducated" user is right, not us. Speaking from a philosophical point of view a database is nothing more than an organized way to store information and retrieve it on demand.
Everything else is just quibbling over minutiae.
Consider a spreadsheet, for example. It is a *table*. It can even be multiple tables, depending on how the spreadsheet is laid out. A file system is nothing more than an indexing scheme to retrieve the table. It may not be *fast*, it may not be *efficient*, but it absolutely is an index.
Therefore a folder full of spreadsheets is a database. Even by our definition.
Access, for all that it's been maligned, is also a database, and with 90% of the features of SQL server. I've used it to develop and run the backbone of an SMB for nine years now. Tables, indexes, transactions, "stored procedures" (albeit in the front end), and so on.
SQL Server is simply a more powerful version of the spreadsheet, of Acess. In other words, it's a glorified card catalog and it behooves us to remember that. At the end of the day SQL Server does the same thing a shoebox full of 3x5 cards does. It's just piled higher and deeper is all. (laughing)
December 20, 2009 at 10:49 am
Does anybody remember the term data bank? It was popularized in some 1960's movies. For most it was some magical "thing" that stored "all of the information in the world" such as the spinning rings in the original movie version of The Time Machine.
Database or data base is a similar idea to most people. When a lay person says they need help with their database, they are not referring to SQL Server; they are referring to Excel or Access. But, they understand that a database is a collection of related data. Hence the R in RDBMS. If it's not related, then why store it? Even my collection of baseball cards I had was a kid was an RDBMS. The filing system was a cardboard shoebox. The collection of cards was the database.
I just wish my Mom hadn't tossed out my autographed Hank Aaron, Eddie Matthews, and Warren Spahn. :crying:
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 27 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply