Call That a Database? This is a Database.

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » SQLServerCentral.com » Editorials » Call That a Database? This is a Database.

18 posts, Page 2 of 2

««1 2

Call That a Database? This is a Database.

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

simonball

Posted Monday, February 27, 2012 6:55 AM

Forum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:41 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 35

pbowman-543344 (2/27/2012)

diddybase - < 1Gb, especially the "test" or "proof of concept" databases, beloved of developers, with less than 10,000 records in each table, or with an entire dataset < available RAM.

terrorbase - Terabytes. Lots of em.

But I agree with Phil, the biggest lack is words for proper OLTP systems with hundreds/thousands of simultaneous processes needing to do non-repudiable, acid-compliant transactions without deadlocking. Think stock exchanges or other trading platforms.

Love Diddybase!

suggestion for an Online transactransaction mega massive database?

an Oltrabase? or an Oltra Mega-base

me:"Emily! We do not pull the wallpaper off the walls!"
Emily (aged 3)<sulkily mumbles>:"We do because we can."

Post #1258211

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Monday, February 27, 2012 7:06 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 11:20 AM
Points: 31,437, Visits: 13,752

Great one, Phil, and we certainly need better terms. This large/very large, isn't a good choice as that will constantly evolve. Made up words that describe size, scale, or even rate of transactions, would be better.

Provided that we don't try to be marketers and create words that imply we've ever reached some limit, like the Ultimabase or something similar.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #1258220

JimBama08

Posted Monday, February 27, 2012 11:45 AM

Grasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:21 AM
Points: 22, Visits: 195

Great topic. I think there's a perfect metaphor around highway interchanges. I particularly like this description of so-called stack interchanges: "This is not only expensive but also creates an eyesore among local residents, leading to considerable NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) opposition. Large stacks with multiple levels are often colloquially described as Mixmasters or spaghetti bowls due to their complex appearance, being compared to boiled spaghetti." So perhaps something like this works:

CASE
WHEN DatabaseSize > 1Tb and Concurrency > 1000
THEN 'CloverStack'
WHEN DatabaseSize BETWEEN 100Gb AND 1Tb and Concurrency > 500
THEN 'CloverLeaf'
WHEN DatabaseSize BETWEEN 1Gb AND 100Gb and Concurrency > 50
THEN 'Roundabout'
WHEN DatabaseSize BETWEEN 1Mb AND 1Gb and Concurrency < 20
THEN 'Mayberry'
END as DatabaseClass

I'm sure there are holes in my CASE statement, but there are tons of possibilities. And when you think about it we're trying to keep everything flowing as best we can with unpredictable inputs (volume of traffic, size of vehicles, weather conditions, etc.), a limited budget and specs that change after the infrastructure has been hardened.

Great topic.

~~ Everything in moderation, including moderation. ~~

Post #1258437

Phil Factor

Posted Monday, February 27, 2012 11:46 AM

Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, May 19, 2013 4:00 AM
Points: 533, Visits: 2,285

I've just used the term 'unCoddly' for a database that had all sorts of de-normalisations in it.
As regarding having to remember the types of database, we all find it easy to remember the sixty names of types of dog. It is just as well, considering that there is a huge difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane.

Best wishes,

Phil Factor
Simple Talk

Post #1258438

Tony Palmeri

Posted Monday, February 27, 2012 12:09 PM

Grasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 18, 2013 3:14 PM
Points: 15, Visits: 112

Here's my two cents, FWIW: The fault for the effects of poor communication does not fall on the English language for it's lack of overly specific terminology. The fault lies with every one of us, who uses terms like "database" ambiguously. If you *mean* something like MS-Access running on a local workstation, say so. If you *mean* something like a mega/giga/tera-OLTP, say so. We have the words... use them.

This has always been one of my pet peaves.... Too often, the speaker/writer has a fully formed specific idea of what he is talking about and in his own mind he knows what he, himself, specifically means by a word like "database" - - - but he fails to take into account the the context of the listener/reader with whom he is endeavoring to communicate. I always try to be concsious of ambiguities in certain terminology, and to explicitly resolve the specifics in my communication wherever warranted.

Most miscommunication that I see happening comes BOTH from speakers *and* listeners failing to notice (even fairly obvious) abiguities in their words.

For example, if there is *ANY* chance that the listener/reader might interpret my use of the word "database" as something like MS-Access, when I really mean something like SQL Server, .... *and* if that difference is germane to the discussion, I'll try to be very explicit in what I am talking about and why it is a relevant distinction.

I don't think we need to invent new words for this. In fact, I think it might actually be counter-productive because there are SO many combinations and permutations of database features, scopes, scales, etc... that we'd end up with such a proliferation of new words, they would only confuse things further.

Post #1258458

gserdijn

Posted Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:34 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 8:00 AM
Points: 1,065, Visits: 698

A few things come to mind when reading the article.

1. Kate Bush's album '50 Words for Snow' - excellent stuff.
2. An uncle talking about his database containing a few hundred records. 'Oh, yes, databases, I have one too...'
3. Crocodile Dundee: Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee: [chuckling] That's not a knife. [draws a large Bowie knife] That's a knife.

The simple distinctions I make:
Small databases: sandboxes
Critical databases: handle with care-databases

Nice article.

Dutch Anti-RBAR League

Post #1258675