Talk:Comparison of object–relational database management systems

Comment

Why does the link entitled "object-relational database management systems" link to the page "Object database"??? This seems nonsensical, since I would expect something object-relational database management systems........(-- unsigned comment by 129.187.41.21 on 09:55, 13 May 2007‎ 129.187.41.21)

Since fixed. -- Beland (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

type inheritance

Does postgreSQL have type inheritance? There is no documentation available on the same.

Is that the same as "table inheritance" over here? Jackrepenning (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The chart now says it does... -- Beland (talk) 23:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oracle supports calling supertype methods as from 11g (2007)

In Oracle 11g, Oracle supports calling a supertype method (Oracle Database New Features Guide 11g (Release 11.1): (http://www.oracle.com/pls/db111/to_pdf?pathname=server.111/b28279.pdf, http://www.oracle.com/pls/db111/to_toc?pathname=server.111/b28279/toc.htm) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.43.161 (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"1.1.11.5 Method Invocation Scoping Operator A subtype usually adds specific data attributes to its more generic supertype. Typically, a NOT FINAL member procedure, for example, Show_Attributes(), is implemented at each level in the type hierarchy. It is natural to implement this at one level by reusing the implementation at the parent level and by adding new code just for the attributes of the subtype. Oracle Database 11g supports the ANSI SQL generalized-invocation syntax to allow the following: (<type-instance> AS <type-name>).<method-name>." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.43.161 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Other RDBMS's???

Why just those 3 (Oracle, OpenLink Virtuoso, PostgreSQL)? Why not MS SQL Server, IBM DB2, and many many other databases? Selection of just those 3 seems very arbitrary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.43.161 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because these are OBJECT relational databases, not RDBMS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.53.133 (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Intersystems Cache is an Object-relational database. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.202.90 (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these are apparently object-relational to at least some degree. Many were deleted for no apparent reason in 2007, so I'm restoring them. -- Beland (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a distinction in the lack of difference?

There are two tables here, and they show the same info--all "Yes"--for all attributes of all three products. (Well, there's one footnote.) Is there really no difference among the products? Jackrepenning (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like several products have finished implementing missing features, so yay. But I'm adding products, so no doubt the charts will look different once filled out. If anyone knows of any other good attributes to add to make the charts more interesting (I'm adding a license column, which will definitely be varied), feel free to expand! -- Beland (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge to "Comparison of relational database management systems"?

This article was started in 2007 and there are still 5 systems only. I think it can be merged into "Comparison of relational database management systems" article. Lucas Malor (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Object-relational databases have a lot more features than relational-only databases; I think to some degree they are a distinct set that solve slightly different problems. Certainly if you're shopping for a database you want to consider the two classes separately, even if you are considering both. -- Beland (talk) 00:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)