Talk:XML database

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't native XML databases and XML enabled databases have their own articles?

semi-structured data

Can semi-structured data have more info too, and maybe a separate article?

Are XML database DBMS?

I was wondering whether or not we could view XML database as DBMS? --194.221.74.7 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following article should be cited

This page refers contents of the following article (almost a cut/paste). Shouldn't this URL at least be cited? http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2001/10/31/nativexmldb.html

Request: does anyone know if anyone actually uses these?

It would be nice to know the adoption history of this idea.--Joanna Bryson 12:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XML not ideal for databases?

I read this article in Dutch In short, it stated that XML is not suited for databases because you have to read /write the entire file when accessing and changing data and it misses some key features for indexing/searching editing etc. http://www.lizatec.com/LIZATEC/XMLHYPEOFZEGEN/XMLALSDATABSE

maybe users should be given a warning that these DTBs can cause problem when they become large.

This is not a particularly true comment. Different database technologies have different pros and cons. XML takes up more space and requires more whole file handling but has embedded semantic meaning and keywords within it which can massively speed up processing if you are doing a lot of indexing and "keyword" searching. The statement that XML is "not suited" for databases is a common thing that classical database people say!:-) As storage, disk space, and CPU speeds go up and become more efficient XML becomes more and more useful. Alex Jackl 15:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're basically agreeing that XML is inefficient, if you say you need more storage, disk space, and CPU speed for it to be useful. 201.212.44.26 (talk) 19:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, that is a very true comment. Don't get me wrong, I hate relational databases, but XML databases are slow as hell. Even if you do use some kind of navigation system to "skim" the data (and I'd like to see an efficient one), you still end up reading/writing a lot more than you really need to be. But object databases beat both of them. :) -- FatalError 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all XML databases are slow. See, for example, http://markmail.org which runs on top of MarkLogic Server —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricBloch (talk • contribs) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Native NXD (definition)

It is true that XML documents do not necessarily have to be stored in a text file. However, I don't want the definition to suggest that they have to be stored as text, so I will try to clarify it. Adrianwn (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implementations: NPOV

Changes to the entry for Sedna in the Implementations-section are frequently reverted by 82.153.252.37 (talk · contribs) to a biased version. Such claims have to be backed up by reliable sources. Furthermore, please do not claim ownership of content. If you are in any way related to that software, please refrain from editing content related to it; instead, ask someone else to do it, or discuss it on the corresponding talk page.

I will change the entry to a more neutral form. If you disagree, please post your reasons on this talk page before reverting my edit. Thank you. Adrianwn (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]