Ingres on Wikipedia
Ingres Forums
Some information is missing from the Ingres entries for the Wikipedia
article 'Comparison of relational database management systems'
(http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu) - specifically from the sections 'Database
capabilities' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu) and 'Data types'
(http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu).
With regards to the 'Database capabilities' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu)
section, am I correct in thinking Ingres does -not- offer intersect or
except SQL operators? Does Ingres allow 'common table expressions'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_table_expressions) or 'windowing
functions' (http://tinyurl.com/yatrv46)?
The 'Data types' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu) section did not have an
entry for Ingres. I have since added one, but would appreciate if
others could review the information.
--
shusseina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
shusseina's Profile: http://community.ingres.com/forum/member.php?userid=31
View this thread: http://community.ingres.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11362
Roy Hann
> With regards to the 'Database capabilities' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu)
> section, am I correct in thinking Ingres does -not- offer intersect or
> except SQL operators?
You are correct as of now, but watch that space; they're coming "soon".
Also, while you're tinkering in that area, the latest stable version of
Ingres is shown as 9.3. Considering 9.3 is a bit of a special-purpose
version I wonder if that should really be 9.2?
> Does Ingres allow 'common table expressions'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_table_expressions) or 'windowing
> functions' (http://tinyurl.com/yatrv46)?
Nope.
> The 'Data types' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu) section did not have an
> entry for Ingres. I have since added one, but would appreciate if
> others could review the information.
It looks complete to me, except that there is no mention of OME types.
While we're talking about Wikipedia, I've tried starting a discussion
about changing the name of the article currently called "Ingres
(database)" to "Ingres DBMS". Ingres is not a database.
--
Roy
UK Ingres User Association Conference 2010 will be on Tuesday June 8 2010
Go to http://www.iua.org.uk/join to get on the mailing list.
Ingres Forums
Ingres Forums wrote:
>Also, while you're tinkering in that area, the latest stable version
of
>Ingres is shown as 9.3. Considering 9.3 is a bit of a special-purpose
>version I wonder if that should really be 9.2?
The 'Ingres (database)'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingres_%28database%29) article has the
version as 9.2, with the following comment in the code: -"9.3 is a
strange not-quite GA release, so don't mention it here"-. I tend to
think it should be 9.3 (in both articles) as I'm sure the large majority
of new Ingres installations run atop Linux or Windows and hence use 9.3.
What do others think?
>> The 'Data types' ('Comparison of relational database management
systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' (http://tinyurl.com/bnhnu))
section did not have an
>> entry for Ingres. I have since added one, but would appreciate if
>> others could review the information.
>It looks complete to me, except that there is no mention of OME types.
Added "User-Defined Data Types (via OME)."
>While we're talking about Wikipedia, I've tried starting a discussion
>about changing the name of the article currently called "Ingres
>(database)" to "Ingres DBMS". Ingres is not a database.
Fair call I guess. It's a pity the article about -Jean Auguste
Dominique Ingres- is not named exactly that or Ingres (French Painter)
or something. Then the article -Ingres (database)- could simply be
Ingres.
Thanks for your feedback Roy.
Ingres Forums
> I'm sure the large majority of new Ingres installations run atop Linux
> or Windows and hence use 9.3.
Unix flavors (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) or even VMS.
> It's a pity the article about Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres is not named
> exactly that or Ingres (French Painter) or something. Then the article
Or just rename the dead guy - he won't complain anymore ;)
--
Bodo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bodo's Profile: http://community.ingres.com/forum/member.php?userid=16
Roy Hann
>
> Ingres Forums wrote:
>
>>Also, while you're tinkering in that area, the latest stable version
> of
>>Ingres is shown as 9.3. Considering 9.3 is a bit of a special-purpose
>>version I wonder if that should really be 9.2?
>
> The 'Ingres (database)'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingres_%28database%29) article has the
> version as 9.2, with the following comment in the code: -"9.3 is a
> strange not-quite GA release, so don't mention it here"-. I tend to
> think it should be 9.3 (in both articles) as I'm sure the large majority
> of new Ingres installations run atop Linux or Windows and hence use 9.3.
It's a conundrum.
New adopters might well opt for the 9.3 server and APIs and get
significant benefit from doing so. But 9.3 is not a supported
upgrade for the large number of existing users, and if they're using
ABF or embedded SQL or Report Writer it's not going to work for them.
I'd be inclined leave the information panel saying 9.2 is the GA
release and maybe add a *short* note somewhere in the article pointing
out that 9.3 is GA but probably not applicable to existing users, with a
link to Pam's wording she posted last week.
Ingres Forums
Bodo;28641 Wrote:
> I really doubt this. I believe most production systems are running on
> Unix flavors (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) or even VMS.
I was referring to -new- Ingres installations. Why would anyone choose
proprietary-UNIX over Linux?
--
shusseina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
shusseina's Profile: http://community.ingres.com/forum/member.php?userid=31
Ingres Forums
> Why would anyone choose proprietary-UNIX over Linux?
Or why would anyone choose a proprietary DBMS over Ingres? :)
It's called "politics" - in most cases it's not the techies
(developers, DBAs, architects) who make these platform decisions.
Often things like existing investments (hardware, other software,
trained staff), "company standards", and golf-court liaisons also come
into play.
--
Bodo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bodo's Profile: http://community.ingres.com/forum/member.php?userid=16
Karl Schendel
On Nov 17, 2009, at 12:11 AM, Ingres Forums wrote:
>
> Bodo;28641 Wrote:
>> I really doubt this. I believe most production systems are running on
>> Unix flavors (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX) or even VMS.
>
> I was referring to -new- Ingres installations. Why would anyone choose
> proprietary-UNIX over Linux?
Because they have existing hardware that runs the
relevant *ix better than linux; or because they have a
deal with a hardware maker that involves *ix; or
they've run *ix for years in other contexts and
understand it well; or because they want some
particular feature such as ZFS.
I like Linux, don't get me wrong; but I can think of
*lots* of valid reasons to be running Solaris or AIX.
Or (grudgingly) even HP-UX, or VMS. Solaris+VxFS
in particular has been a very strong DBMS platform
for a lot longer than Linux has been large-scale
production viable IMO.
Karl
Ingres Forums
Can't argue with that! :)
I've set the latest stable version of Ingres to 9.2 in the two
previously mentioned Wikipedia articles and also added a note about
Ingres 9.3.
Joner Cyrre Worm
ing...@kettleriverconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> Or just rename the dead guy - he won't complain anymore ;)
>
Things don't work that way on Wikipedia, Ron is on the right path to
try to change the article's name, and everybodyelse interested should
post their opinion on the article's discussion page.and propose the
solution on the painter's discussion page too, probably. You see that
other DBMSs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Database_management_system#Examples) follow no specific patern: some
include the company name, even Oracle is "Oracle Database", and
Sybase is hidden behind marketing buzzwords. No fast track here.
Bodo
Joner,
you don't have to explain to me how wikipedia works.
That's hilarious: You really want to tell me that we can't rename a
person after his death in Wikipedia? Very funny.
My comment was a reply to shusseina's comment who wrote:
"It's a pity the article about Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres is not
named exactly that or Ingres (French Painter) or something. Then the
article Ingres (database) could simply be Ingres."
I didn't recommend to rename the "Ingres" page (for the painter), but
was just joking - therefore the wink smilie ;) - that we could rename
the painter instead.
Don't take comments containing smilies dead earnest.
Bodo.
Joner Cyrre Worm
Bodo:
Wikipedia has enough vandalism, and there is no need to suggest that
and put a smiley that you say that mean "Just kidding, don't do
that!". Thousands read posts here in search of opinions, help,
orientation and there is no need to give people "not ideas". At least
our posts finally made that clear, no harm intended, but to make
things clear.
Ingres Forums
Bodo;28681 Wrote:
> On Nov 18, 9:05�am, Joner Cyrre Worm <jonerw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 16, 1:13�pm, Ingres Forums
> <info-ing...@kettleriverconsulting.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Or just rename the dead guy - he won't complain anymore ;)
> >
> > Bodo:
> > Things don't work that way on Wikipedia, Ron is on the right path to
> > try to change the article's name, and everybodyelse interested
> should
> > post their opinion on the article's discussion page.and propose the
> > solution on the painter's discussion page too, probably. You see
> that
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/)
> > Database_management_system#Examples) follow no specific patern: some
> > include the company name, even Oracle is �"Oracle Database", and
> > Sybase is hidden behind marketing buzzwords. No fast track here.
>
The article's name *is* "Ingres". The "(database)" after it is only
for Wikipedia disambiguation. Just look at these other examples of such
usage:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_(database)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(database)
Joe
--
joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
joe's Profile: http://community.ingres.com/forum/member.php?userid=9
Roy Hann
> The article's name *is* "Ingres". The "(database)" after it is only
> for Wikipedia disambiguation. Just look at these other examples of such
> usage:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_(database)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(database)
I guess if wikipedia makes the mistake often enough it stops being
wrong.
Ingres Forums
Roy Hann;28768 Wrote:
> Ingres Forums wrote:
>
> > The article's name *is* "Ingres". The "(database)" after it is only
> > for Wikipedia disambiguation. Just look at these other examples of
> such
> > usage:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_(database)
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(database)
>
> I guess if wikipedia makes the mistake often enough it stops being
> wrong.
>
I don't see it as a mistake. The "_(database)" is simply a tag or
abbreviated category meant to disambiguate "enough". I see the tag as
an abbreviation for "database industry" so that a reader can quickly
tell what a topic URL may be about (the subject domain). Note, for
example, that Gemstone_(database) used to be
Gemstone_Database_Management_System, but it was changed for being "too
specific". For more, I'd suggest you check 'Wikipedia:Disambiguation -
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and
'Wikipedia:Naming conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions).
Roy Hann
> Roy Hann;28768 Wrote:
>> Ingres Forums wrote:
>>
>> > The article's name *is* "Ingres". The "(database)" after it is only
>> > for Wikipedia disambiguation. Just look at these other examples of
>> such
>> > usage:
>> >
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bento_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemstone_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_(database)
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_(database)
>>
>> I guess if wikipedia makes the mistake often enough it stops being
>> wrong.
>
> I don't see it as a mistake. The "_(database)" is simply a tag or
> abbreviated category meant to disambiguate "enough". I see the tag as
> an abbreviation for "database industry" so that a reader can quickly
> tell what a topic URL may be about (the subject domain).
I am sure everyone is weary of this thread and I certainly dont' intend
saying anything more about it after this, but the use of the word
"database" in this context *is* incorrect except in the limited sense
that it is the same wrong term that Wikipedia always uses in this
situation. It is also longer than a perfectly correct and
understandable term that could have been used everywhere, namely DBMS.
Heck, even calling all these articles something like Ingres_(software)
would be better.
If wikipedia is going to aspire to authority and precision--as it does
if you look at the long-winded discussion pages--then it ought to be
interested in getting this right no matter how long or how often it
got it wrong in the past.
> Note, for
> example, that Gemstone_(database) used to be
> Gemstone_Database_Management_System, but it was changed for being "too
> specific".
Not a relevant example as Gemstone is not a DBMS, although whoever made
that comment was right to object to the original name even though their
stated reason doesn't makes sense.
> For more, I'd suggest you check 'Wikipedia:Disambiguation -
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and
> 'Wikipedia:Naming conventions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions).
These are excellent guidelines but they don't promote the use of
incorrect terms, they just require the use of terms that would allow a
user to recognize which title they really want.