Jump to content

Talk:Oracle Database/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Oracle Database
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Djm-leighpark (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 1 October 2019 (Removing two section archived by mistake and now restored on live take page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 1

relational database rewrite

I am trying to rewrite relational database and am soliciting opinions. I am particularly interested in bringing in the practical and popular definitions of the term to counter the current article's domination by the "theoretical" crowd. Ideogram 11:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mid-range"?

"Oracle and IBM tend to battle for the mid-range market". While this is true, I would say they also battle for the high-end market - indeed, Oracle, DB/2, and Teradata are pretty much the entire high-end market...unless I'm missing something in the definition here. Afabbro 04:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"mid-range" is a loose phrase with no clear definition - I would suggest it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Whimsley 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mushy introduction

Yes, "Oracle database" can just be a general term for "a database held on one of Oracle's RDBMS products", but this is an encyclopedia. We should stick to defining "Oracle database" as being the RDBMS application and qualify other uses in an appropriate manner. The intro seems pretty hopelessly mushy right now, and I can't think what it must be like for people who don't already have a clear understanding between the different meanings "database" can have.

For that matter, we could do with moving this to a less ambiguous name, but one step at a time. Chris Cunningham 12:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now reworked the intro to address these concerns. Chris Cunningham 11:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's move the page

This talk page seems to have pretty low activity, but I want to go ahead and move this article from Oracle database to something closer to the actual product name, either Oracle RDBMS or simply Oracle Database (with the 2nd word capitalized), preferably the former. I don't see how a database of any brand would refer to the software that manipulates it, rather than the actual entity on disk. From what I can tell, the base product name is simply Oracle, released by SDL who later renamed themselves to Oracle Corporation. I see they have other Oracle _____ products, so Oracle RDBMS seems like the best name to use to refer to this specific product. Mentioning the literal database entity at the beginning of the introduction is confusing.

If you see this comment before I act, please give your opinion. I'm in between class right now, so I'll probably do it later tonight (EST time) or tomorrow. --DJ Phazer 14:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for this. That Oracle have traditionally blurred the lines between their product names and their generic definitions should not affect us: we should try to define articles as best we can. We don't need a generic article on "Oracle databases", we need one on the Oracle RDBMS product. I'd definitely go with being as specific as we can. Chris Cunningham 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oops... well I moved it, as you can see, but I realize, especially because of what they call it on [www.oracle.com], that the official name is Oracle Database, with a capital D. (I swear I've hit the nail squarely this time!) And now I can't move it to that because the redirect page has a history. Requesting assistance! In the mean time, we/I can still clean up the article.
The amusing part is that a great majority of other articles link to Oracle RDBMS rather than the other two. I have concluded that the official name is simply Oracle Database, while it can also be referred to as the "Oracle RDBMS" or "Oracle database system" or some variation, as long as you use the word the, referring to the system in this way as a noun, and not a name. --DJ Phazer 19:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh. Well, per WP:NAME, if it's most commonly referred to as "Oracle RDBMS" then that's where it goes. I work for a company who rename all their products every twelve months, so I feel the pain. The important thing is the the article definitively refers to the product and not random instances of the product or various other concepts. (For what it's worth, if a redirect is getting in the way of a page move and it's not contested you can replace the offending redirect page with {{db-move}} and an admin will come along and delete it to make way for the move. Just for future reference.) Chris Cunningham 10:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the page for the last time. The page title is now the official current name of the product. All other names are either alternatives or previous names. I believe I'm being correct; add your opinion if you like. Now, time for cleanup! --DJ Phazer 02:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

user objects and objects in OO Programming

I'm new to wikipedia, so go easy on me :)

in the fourth paragraph under "Physical and logical structuring" there is a link from user objects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_%28computer_science%29 . As far as I know, database user objects are different from OO Programming objects. Should this link be here, or is it misleading? 75.26.36.92 00:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fix typo?

"1979: Larry Ellison and friends founded..."

According to entry Oracle_Corporation, it was in 1977. The name change in the same year doesn't make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.133.16 (talk) 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut 'imprecision' 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)

<<The title of this article — and parts of the article content — perpetuate this confusion.>> muhahahahahaha

In 'Oracle speak' the word "database" refers to the physical files on the hard disk. The Oracle application when running is the "instance". Personally I think there should be no entry in wikipedia for Oracle_database, it should be moved to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_(Computer_Software)" or such like. Simonjl


yeeah baby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.132.154 (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oracle Firsts?

I'm concerned about the list of Oracle "firsts" not being accurate. I've added a "citation needed" in a couple places. The first on Linux claim might be incorrect, since I'm finding references to IBM DB2 shipping slightly earlier. Similarly, the "shared everything" claim falls down with DB2 for z/OS and Parallel Sysplex data sharing, which appeared years before Oracle's implementation.

Could someone check these out more thoroughly?

-- The "first web database" things a bit suspect as well frankly. What does that even *mean*?. Where all those databases used on the web not webby enough? 203.59.162.212 06:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

-- The first proprietary database on Linux claim is incorrect. Informix SE came out on July 23, 1998: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/3110 Oracle issued a press release saying that the company would support Linux, also in July 1998, but the actual release wasn't until later that year. http://lwn.net/1999/features/1998timeline/ 198.144.202.253 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradictory definitions

The article gives two different definitions, in paragraphs that are quite close from one another: 

 iSQL*Plus, a web-browser-based interface to Oracle database DML

and 

 SQL*Plus, a CLI-based program that allows users to interact with Oracle database(s) via SQL and PL/SQL commands.

Can somebody clarify, please? --AVM (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice the "i" in front of SQL*Plus on the first one? iSQL*Plus != SQL*Plus. Jerazol (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Their purposes are almost identical; the main difference is just web interface vs. CLI. There are a few commands not available in iSQL*Plus, such as the spool command, which spools output to a text file. I can see the potential for confusion since the article implies that iSQL*Plus is solely for DML, and SQL*Plus is for SQL and PL/SQL commands. MeekMark (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature restrictions in Standard Edition One?

The article states that Standard Edition One "has some additional feature-restrictions" but the link at [26] says "Standard Edition One is an affordable, full-featured database". So, are there any restrictions in One, and if so, which?

Also, IMHO, the description of the various editions should go into more detail. Any expert on the subject?

wr 87.139.81.19 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Oracle logo.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Supported Platforms

Still learning the guidelines re. copyrighted web sites. Oracle's information page has installation guides for a number of platforms for 10g. Could that be used to update the outdated list in this article? Thanks. Rxmz20 (talk) 14:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Just trying to add HOW-TOs

I did some completes (??) installation guide for the latest RDBMS version... why not giving some links on this page ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwwdjtoniofr (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOHOWTOJasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"...but one limited to 11 GB of user data a..."

Refering to Oracle Express Edition I believe that user data is limited to 4GB and not 11GB. See http://www.oracle.com/us/products/database/product-editions-066501.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.132.98.109 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SQL 2008:E021-03 / E131 problems

This piece of code shows that Oracle considers an empty string to be equivalent to null: 

set serveroutput on

DECLARE
  v_name varchar2(30) not null := ' '; --  a single space is considered an empty string
                                  -- an actual empty string ('') is considered null and gives an error
BEGIN
  DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('Name is: ['||v_name||']');
  v_name := 'EXAMPLE NAME';
  DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('Name is: ['||v_name||']');
  v_name := ' ';
  DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE('Name is: ['||v_name||']');
END;  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.146.28.114 (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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)
This discussion was moved awhile ago; there's some good comments over there. Paul Raveling's comment in particular lines up with my understanding from many discussions with others in the industry - Oracle only ever claimed to be the first *commercial* product that could actually be bought. I think the original text actually was accurate (first commercial) and the current text is actually inaccurate (an early commercial). Should either (1) revert to original text or (2) remove the word commercial and just say it was an early RDBMS, which is accurate. ArdentPerf (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

IP editor and commercial product placement

I've twice removed an external URL to one single commercial product that IP editor 96.242.234.34 has littered about Wikipedia. Editor has placed product advertisement links in Oracle Database, IBM DB2 database, various other database articles and even in remote sensing. I've left notes on the IP editor's talk page and IP editor has ignored an admonition to cease using Wikipedia to promote one product. Another editor had done similar last month. IP editor then added the reverted link and was reverted. One more revert by IP editor will result in an AIV report.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Needs a total rewrite

This article really needs a total rewrite. As a start, it really needs to start with a general overview of how all the components fit together, but in a more comprehensive and less technical manner. For instance, we really don't need to know the exact initialize parameters, though a discussion of what an init parameter is would be good.

I'll give this some thought as I'm thinking of doing something about this article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, my initial thoughts are to structure the article in the following way:
  1. Lead section
  2. Architecture
    1. Blocks, extents and segments
    2. Tablespaces
    3. Control files
  3. Schema and data dictionary
  4. Instance information
    1. Memory structures
    2. SGA
      1. Buffer cache
      2. Dictionary cache
      3. Shared pool
      4. Cursors
    3. PGA
  5. Process architecture
    1. Dedicated vs Shared server
    2. LGWR
    3. DBWn
    4. CKPT
    5. SMON
    6. PMON
    7. ARCn
    8. QMNn
  6. Features
    1. Concurrency features
    2. RAC info
    3. Administration
      1. Automatic undo management
      2. ASSM
      3. ADDM and AWR
      4. Oracle Enterprise Manager
      5. Advisor framework
      6. Oracle Managed Files and ASM
    4. Content management
  7. Application development (PL/SQL, OCI, Java frameworks, etc.)
What do people think? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
A good technical overview would certainly help, and a picture would paint a thousand words. I have a few books on Oracle that may help - I think these will probably have a diagram showing how the components of the database fit together. Obviously we couldn't use one of these but presumably we could come up with an original version? I'm not sure how much of the above list could be covered in any detail without getting into Wikibooks territory, and there is also the issue of how much the article should focus on the current version of Oracle - I think we should avoid too much recentism and if possible give an overview of how the architecture and features have changed over the years, which if we keep it at a fairly high level probably isn't too much - I have books based on v7 and v8 which may help, and I believe recent technical manuals are all freely available online. A lot of the current content of the article doesn't belong - history of Oracle Corp, development suites, other databases, user groups, etc. - these are better covered elsewhere.--Michig (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering about those other sections... maybe we could still use them? For the architecture, I think that we could cover all the areas here without focussing too much on deprecated features - while I'm not that familiar with Oracle 11g, oracle 10g was where they really started adding the most advanced featureset that they are using today. But definitely interested in the sort of third party material you have there Michig! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Something along the lines of the diagram here is what I had in mind - maybe it could be simplified a little?--Michig (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it is shockingly bad article. I was a oracle dba for a number of years, and its a real shame that wikipedia doesn't reflect what oracle databases are all about, particulalry since they hold the majority, in terms of market share. I also agree with Michig. I think several diagrams are essential to describe the relationship of memory to processes with the SGA. Their is also another diagram which was floating about years ago, in the oracle books, I think, which describes the relationship between datafiles, block, segments and tablespaces. Its virtually impossible using the current article to define how they are related to each other. Also I think their needs to be some focus on the move to automated work repositories introduced in 10g, and expanded heavily 11g, eg, automated storage management, automatic memory management. Aprt from that the breakdown is pretty decent, and would present a vast increase in article quality. scope_creep 16:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
From a search of Oracle.com, came up with this diagram which describes the breakdown of the logical to physical relationship. The diagrams on this page here explaining the relationship of blocks to datafiles would be beneficial as would a description ot the internal structure of some of these disk and memory structures. On top of that a single diagram, (I may be harping on here.), which shows the overall relationship of all components in the oracle instance, like this. I wouldn't mind knocking one up for Oracle 11g. scope_creep 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is still an issue, and the outline you've proposed is significantly better. This is not structured like a wikipedia article in it's current form. Splitting things into features, architecture, etc would be a vast improvement. "Physical and logical structures" as the first heading, it extremely strange from my view, and doesn't conform with any other database article I can find. Something like "Overview", then "History", then "Architecture" would seem to make more sense. You could have most of the same content, but within it's reasonable heading. q (talk) 14:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

If anyone can do a rewrite to make this more intelligible, please do but be aware that the RDBMS is no longer anywhere close to being as simple as portrayed in the suggestions above.

For example, the process model illustrated here is long out of date: By the time I retired from the Oracle Server Technologies Division the number of server processes had at least doubled from those shown here. Some notable missing process types are Streams coordinators and slaves. Within the kernel the most important processes are generally those for user sessions, with some special cases when using RAC. For the area that I worked in, RECO processes were often significant for two-phase-commit error recovery. There are some additional new processes that I won't mention because several were added in a major version of the product that might not be released yet. Also, at the time I retired a number of them seemed to be not yet documented.


About the comment at the top of the page saying that the page has too much jargon -- In all honesty, this seems VERY naive. This is a highly technical product, it's not possible to talk about it without using some of its subject-specific vocabulary. This page is in fact very mild in the degree of specialized language that it uses. Perhaps Wikipedia should have separate pages for different classes of readers.

Paul Raveling (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On Microsoft Windows Server platforms, I think the "process model" is actually implemented as Windows threads (or certainly used to be), and therefore it is less easy to see PMON, SMON etc process architecture from the Windows Task manager (more detailed process monitoring tools will expose the process architecture).

193.35.250.233 (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Rename to Oracle database?

Wiki policy is strongly against capitalisation in names and titles. As "Oracle" is known (as a proper name) as "Oracle" rather than "Oracle Database", why should it be capitalised here? Wiki is very much against following "non-sentence" capitalisation for product names, no matter what the product owner calls it. Even terms that are generally treated as proper noun phrases or with strong dependencies on capitalisation (like Software as a Service, SaaS ) often lose their capitals here. Viam Ferream (talk) 09:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

There is also "Oracle Corporation", should we be referring to them as "oracle corporation"? Proper names are capitalized throughout Wikipedia, be it a name of a person or a name of a corporation. Something like software as a service isn't a proper name, as it's a description of how software is licensed, rather than a proper name.131.131.64.210 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
What is the corporation called? I think it's "Oracle Corporation", in which case capitalising the name would be right - although there seem to be many editors who wouldn't even capitalise that.
My point here though is that the WP:COMMONNAME for the DB is "Oracle database", not "Oracle Database". So we both don't like Title Case for it and we can't justify it. Viam Ferream (talk) 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Redo it all

This article has been totally destroyed. It's not at all in the style of an encyclopedia. I see no other option but to restart it from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohan (talk • contribs) 10:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Article needs some trimming

Some sections go into and list details that don't seem appropiate for a Wikipedia article. For example, the "Physical and logical structures" section contains listings of various internal processes and C data structures. That entire section should be limited to a succinct overview of what the database uses (physical) or represents (logical). We'll leave the process listings to Oracle books.

"Deployment" and "Use" have some overlap and it's not made very clear why they both are around.

"Database options and features" looks a lot like it's just listing every feature in the database; again the encyclopedic value is not quite clear here. Perhaps just summarize some prominent features and source it with a feature list provided in a source.

-- Phiarc (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

"Oracle Instant Client": supported platforms

Oracle provides the free (as in at no cost) Oracle Instant Client middleware, that enables running Oracle DB clients on various platforms. Isn't that valuable information, worth being quoted in the article? --johayek (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

DBMS or RDBMS

Although I just reverted a set of changes marked as minor one suggest that RDBMS be changed to DBMS. It's also to be noted Oracle Corporation supplies/supplied or has stewardship of a number of databases including Oracle NoSQL Database. Any thoughts?. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

RDBMS refers to a database using the relational model, whereas DBMS refers generally to database management systems regardless of the data model types supported by that software. Oracle was originally developed as a relational database management system, but subsequently added a wide variety of other data modeling approaches including Object-Relational (ORDBMS), Graph, Spatial, multi-dimensional (cube structures), key/value, and document. Ccraft us (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also note the first sentence refers to Oracle as both "relational" (RDBMS) and "multi-model", which is a conflict in terms. Using the general term Database Management System (DBMS) eliminates that conflict. Ccraft us (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the other databases from Oracle, those include MySQL, Oracle NoSQL Database, and TimesTen. Ccraft us (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

lede Re-write

I just did a load of reversions to the lead on a technicality that they were marked as minor. But I will also comment is probably unsatisfactory. In my opinion the lede should be in general terms that make sense to a tweleve year old (or your average manager) and not going into technie details the technies can find in the body. And the lede should also be supported by the body. It's more important to say how it is an enterprise level database theat has evolved over time. Probably also need to mention Oracle Corporation also does other database management systems as well. But it's possibly necessary to gain consensus before doing a re-write. I havan't got time to even try at present.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I will re-submit the changes as a request for edit on the talk page, since I am an employee of Oracle. I will avoid anything that isn't (yet) supported in the body of the article, or possibly provide supporting detail to be placed in the body simultaneously with my suggestions for the lead section. Please reply with your advise if you have suggestions on a better approach. Ccraft us (talk) 03:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest preparing a new lede on the workpage I've just created. Unlikely the talk page which is essentially a log that is mostly appended to a workpage is an editable page.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Was version 2 SQL Based ?

The 1979 version 2 would generally be agreed to be an RDBMS, however was it SQL based? My hazy and possibly recollection from reading some decades ago is the intitial version(s) were not SQL based but simply used the OCI. Of course their may have been an SQL pre-processor. Referring to http://www.dba-oracle.com/t_history_oracle.htm ... and I might prefer to find an alternative reference with no disrespect to that author ... it was 1983 version 3 that first supported the execution of SQL statements and transactions.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oracle Insights: Tales of the Oak Table : 978-1-59059-387-5 Chapter 1 may seem to imply SQL was used in version 2 ... but I am no means convinced that it can be read unambiguously.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Oracle version 2 was SQL based. Version 2 was released and desupported long before the World Wide Web, so it's difficult to locate online resources to prove this. It's entirely possible a library somewhere has a printed copy of the version 2 manuals, or Larry Ellison might have a copy in his personal collection. I would offer these links to show that Oracle Version 2 was SQL-based:

Oracle was not the first Relational DBMS, but was the first made available as a commercial product and it used the SQL language. Ccraft us (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Very Poorly Summarized

This article clearly shows a lot of dense technical info, but lacks any sort of popularly intelligible summary or overview at the top. The historical blurb following the title is interesting but sheds zero light on the actual use or function of Oracle system. All that the uninitiated (like me) can glean about the software comes from the first line of the Physical and Logical Structures paragraph:

"An Oracle database system—identified by an alphanumeric system identifier or SID—comprises at least one instance of the application, along with data storage. An instance—identified persistently by an instantiation number (or activation id: SYS.V_$DATABASE.ACTIVATION#)—comprises a set of operating-system processes and memory-structures that interact with the storage."

Ok, so it has a database and an application. Like an operating system. Or a video game. Or any other piece of software ever. The two hyphenated asides make one read the sentences about three times to glean even this much, and provide seemingly unimportant details abour naming schemes. From here, the article descends into unapologetic technobabble. The whole thing is so opaque to the common reader that it seems to be an orchestrated effort to conceal Oracle's purpose and function from the public.

Please, if you know what Oracle *is* from some more civilized source, write an Overview section which gives the lowdown on the subject. A paragraph would suffice. Even one sentence would more than double the article's value. I have created an account solely to draw attention to the embarrassing stare of this article.

Thanks, 

Oogalook

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oogalook (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Real application clusters

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)

Oracle based on University Ingres?

Is the Oracle codebase developed from "University Ingres" or not? I would imagine not, in which case that would be notable in the main argument, because the majority of its compettitors (CA-Ingres, Sybase, SQL Server etc) were. My doubts are really only raised because that on casual inspection Pro*C is remarkably like Ingres ESQL - so is Pro*c developed from ESQL or perhaps ESQL is some kind of industry 'standard' from somewhere? The ESQL page doesn't say where ESQL came from or to which DBMS systems it applies.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Slothie (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oracle_Database/Archive_1&oldid=918996581"