Talk:Document-oriented 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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Databases (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

Single quotes and double quotes in one of the examples

Should it be one or the other? (fotoguzzi)69.64.235.42 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language in the "XML database implementations" Subsection

The language column in this table needs explanation. Does it refer to the language in which the database was implemented, or does it refer to the query language? Several entries are listed with language 'C++', which is likely an implementation language and very unlikely to be a query language. Others are listed with language 'PL/SQL' which is likely to be a query language and very unlikely to be an implementation language.

Could someone with domain expertise clarify and/or correct this table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.26.209 (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Bxj (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable entries

The table seems to have accumulated a large number of non-notable entries. I propose going through a purging those that don't have a wiki page, either for the database or the company behind it. I'll check, of course, for those which have pages under different names. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Eedeebee (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does indexing work?

Some info on document retrieval, querying and the underlying indexing that supports this would be useful. --Dan Bolser (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Today, Indexing isn't something that is specific to a document database implementation so it's quite challenging to say much more than that they are usually indexed by key. Eedeebee (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of another document database implementation

I have created a Wikipedia page for "AurinkoDB" and added it into the table under "Implementations" section, as AurinkoDB is a major document database implementation in Clojure programming language and also the only document database that uses extensible data notation for storage and network transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hzguo (talk • contribs) 23:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since both articles you created are currently tagged for deletion on the basis of failing basic notability, I undid your addition to the list for now. If the article(s) are kept then you can add the link back again. §FreeRangeFrog 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this section should be removed from Talk Eedeebee (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Add Cloudant to implementations?

I work for Cloudant and have a COI.

What do people think about adding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudant to this table of document-oriented DB implementations? Cloudant is built on our open-source fork of CouchDB, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BigCouch. Many of our developers are contributing code back to the Apache CouchDB project. Cloudant is proprietary, has a RESTful API, and uses Erlang for its core along with a mix of Java, Scalang, and C. So I think it is sufficiently different, but some feedback would be great. Thanks. Mbroberg (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudant is in the table now. 87.195.184.143 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is is, can we just junk this section in talk? Eedeebee (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Apache cassandra from implementation

Apache Cassandra is not document oriented database, Cassandra is Wide Column store or column families. as Eric Evans's said here. Maybe, JSON data provided by Cassandra are made of Thrift. Septianw (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hosted document-oriented databases

I recently added a section to the NoSQL page called NoSQL databases on the cloud, which describes ways of deploying NoSQL databases on the cloud (virtual machine, database as a service, and native cloud databases), and provides a few examples of notable implementations. As it happens most of the examples I provided there are of document-oriented DBs - namely Mongo, Cassandra and Redis. I propose adapting the section and adding it here as well. Any thoughts? Anne.naimoli (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Section titled Documents should be rewritten

This section was earlier just a brief summary of structured documents. Now it rambles on about non-document databases in a way that is unhelpful and confusing. Document databases store documents structured in some form (binary, text, json, pdf, xml, whatever). Enough said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eedeebee (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Crate

I would like to add CrateIO to the listings, I do work for them but I feel we fit into the current selection and are an open source project. Let me know if anyone has any objections or I will go ahead. ChrisChinchillaWard (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect article.

Fantastic explanation.

This must be in the foremost example of how technical wiki articles must be written. 164.100.31.82 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV / expert needed

I have added these tags to the article. Aside from the existing issue of relying too much on primary sources, this article reads like it was written exclusively by fans of document-oriented databases. The content constantly harps on the (unsourced) advantages of such systems while not even touching on criticisms or disadvantages. --Chris (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assessment is too harsh. As a longtime user of relational databases who didn't know much about NoSQL databases, this article was very helpful to me. It is exceptionally well written and the explanations are clear. I came to it from the NoSQL page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL, which does discuss the merits of various forms of NoSQL databases, but which does not get into enough detail so that a reader can understand the architectural differences in detail. I'm not disagreeing that this article could use more information on criticisms and disadvantages of document databases, but it should not be just labeled as a stub either --it's considerably better than that.Saddledbyclouds (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]