Talk:Ingres (database)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing: Software Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance). 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 articles

This article seems to get into details that are way beyond what should be in an encyclopedia. The information here should tell people what the product does and where it comes from, it shouldn't contain details instructions on how to install software patches. Mhkay (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. This is (was) one of the most bizarre articles I've ever encountered in Wikipedia. I moved the History section to the top, just after the lead section, thus pushing the excessive detail down. It looks like someone was trying to write a user manual for Ingres; that kind of detailed stuff should be moved to Wikibooks. — Quicksilver^{T @} 20:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the guideline in particular is WP:NOTHOWTO and others that "Wikipedia is not". It is almost all uncited anyway, sigh. A basic overview with a couple sources would be best. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. Not only no citations, (I added some) but what about keeping it current. Pi314m (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After returning to Berkeley, Stonebraker started a post-Ingres project to address the problems with the relational database model that had become increasing clear during the early 1980s. Primary among these was the relational model's inability to understand "types", combination of simpler data that make up a single unit. Today we typically refer to these as objects.

"...the problems with the relational database model" - I do not believe this was the case, there was no problem other than ignorance of the fundamentals.

"Primary among these was the relational model's inability to understand "types"..." - complete rubbish, should be removed.

Replace with this para:

== Postgres ==
After returning to Berkeley, Stonebraker started a post-Ingres project to address limitations of existing database management implementations.

I never heard the term 'fat cursor' that is referenced here - a google search for "fat cursor" postgres or "fat cursors" postgres only returns hits on the wikipedia, and other wikis...

Perhaps the term isn't correct after all? 194.114.62.71 (talk)

I found a Microsoft use of the term and added it as a REF. Pi314m (talk) 08:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that University Ingres, Ingres (Computer Associates) and Postgres should have separate articles. 132.205.45.110 18:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, eight years later and still not there. PostgreSQL is there now as it should, and is much better sourced than this one. What I propose is an article on the current entity Actian that summarizes the previous commercial history. Not sure I will have time to develop it, but it seems worth a try. W Nowicki (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ingres" the artist is the article that should be displayed when "Ingres" is entered in for a search. Instead, a company named "Ingres" appears. The artists is more famous and more important and should be what appears first with a link to the company instead of the other way around. Ingres the artist painted one of the most famous paintings of Napoleon, a bunch of other famous paintings in the Louvre (itself) and taught at important art schools (he was even head of the art school in Rome). He influenced famous/important artists like Edgar Degas, Robert Henri, John Singer Sargent and hundreds others. Besides, "Ingres" the company is probably named after him, although I don't know that for sure. There is even "Ingres" paper (it has been around since the time of Ingres, used by and discussed by various famous/important artists such as in the letters of Degas) which is probably more famous than the company.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinjuicebox (talk • contribs) 02:11, 4 July 2007

The artists name is Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, and it's therefore clear that there's no reason to place an article on this artist under simply Ingres. Or, do you suggest that this artist should be redirected to from Jean, Auguste, Dominique as well as Ingress? As for the questions of which is more notable... Well, I have a Bachelor of arts, and I have to admit, I've never heard of the artist Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres. The company Ingres though, I most certainly have heard of. Jerazol 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A "Bachelor of Arts" is not in itself necessarily a degree in visual art unless one specifically majored in visual art (a B.A. is simply, along with a B.S., Bachelor of Science, just one of the most commonly awarded undergraduate degrees). The way your sentence was written, there is a potentially misleading implication (it seems to have been read that way by User:Interlingua below) that because you have a B.A. you are an authority on visual art. —Lowellian (reply) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much agree with the original post: Ingres the artist (and not this management system) being the more famous and the earlier should be the default for when one types simply "Ingres". Since this is a wikipedia, and not a personal website, whether or not Jerazol has ever heard of Ingres the artist is beside the point, though if he has a degree in art and has never heard of him, this tells us quite a lot more about his study habits than it does the notability of the artist. The fact that Ingres has other names is also not relevant, and the comment about having redirects for each of his given names is snide and insincere.

Consider a few other notable cases in which merely typing the family name leads directly to the main article: Cicero (the Roman writer and not the Chicago suburb), Goya (the Spanish painter and not the American food company), Picasso (the painter and not the Japanese rock band), Da Vinci, Titian, and many more. Or, changing focus, consider these other examples in which various computer-related programs and companies are NOT the default link: Java, Apple, Peru.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Interlingua (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 August 2007

While I appreciate the personal attacks, I never the less disagree with your conclusion. The 3 IT-related names you mention (2 in fact. I have been unable to find any sort of software or otherwise IT-related technology named Peru). It seems fairly obvious that Java and Apple should link to respectively, the land mass and the fruit, as those are what most people would immediately relate with those words/names.

While I'm sure Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres is a famous artist in his own right, he's hardly comparable to artists like Picasso, Da Vinci, Goya etc. which have achieved a general recognition also outside of art circles. If you look at artists like Andy Goldsworthy, Sebastião Salgado, Ansel Adams, you'll notice that Goldsworthy and Adams simply goes to a disambiguation page, while Salgado is an article on some obscure Brazilian village.

If Ingres the artist had been a generally well known person/artist, I would have agreed with you, but as it is, it's 2 separate interest areas with an equal claim to the article namespace, and considering Ingres the rdbms is actually named Ingres, while Ingres the artist is only part of the artists name, I think it makes more sense to keep it as it is, with the disambiguation link at the top of the article, pointing to Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

Jerazol 19:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ingres is an extremely famous artist, definitely widely known outside art circles, and far better known than the database. Ingres is a major, major figure in the history of art. I'm baffled by the comparisons you're making, since Ingres, in terms of how widely-known he is, is definitely on the level of Goya. Comparing Ingres to Goldsworthy and Salgado is using a straw man argument. —Lowellian (reply) 04:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious solution is to make Ingres into a disambiguation page with links to the artist and the database, and for the database article to be renamed "Ingres (database)" or "Ingres Corporation" or something similar. Tevildo 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have moved "Ingres" to "Ingres (database)"; "Ingres" now redirects to the artist, and the artist article now has a hatlink at the top sending pointing people to "Ingres (disambiguation)" so that other meanings of "Ingres", such as the database, can be easily found. —Lowellian (reply) 04:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this while looking at disambiguation pages - since there are only two terms to be disambiguated with "Ingres" (this article, and Ingres (database), a disambiguation page is not actually necessary. All that's needed is a disambiguation hatnote from this article pointing to Ingres (database). I've put that in, and will subsequently delete the disambiguation page. I hope that makes sense, but I'd be happy to explain further if not. MOS:DP#Disambiguation_pages_with_only_two_entries talks about this, and to a lesser extent, so does Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_links. -- Natalya 11:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ingres not a "database"; it is a database management system, which is normally shortened to the acronym DBMS. A database is entirely different from a DBMS. Just as one would not refer to a file system as a "file", one should not refer to a DBMS as a database.

This issue is somewhat clouded by the fact that Ingres Coporation has recently officially designated its product by the name Ingres Database 9.2. In my view this simply perpetuates an ill-informed misnomer and it should not be encouraged here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.133.118.245 (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment does in fact seem accurate. Yes, to be precise, this Ingres is a software system that manages databases, while "database" is a particular collection of such data that is being managed. However, it is (perhaps sadly) often misused as shorthand to just say "database", and it is sufficient for disambiguation purposes. There is no single database named "Ingres", but only one family of software with this name that manages databases (albeit many releases with a long history). So best idea might be to make it clear in the article body, and not spend time on another move battle. W Nowicki (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng: I can't follow your justification for this edit. You've removed a merge template from one page, with "merged to Actian instead", but that merge doesn't seem to have taken place. I see the 'half-baked' redirect from Rhadow which you very reasonably reversed, but that does leave a merge uncompleted and no argument for the alternative target. Any thoughts on the current status? Worth re-instating the initial merge template (which is still up on Applications-By-Forms but not here)? Klbrain (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't clearly remember this. I suspect I was interrupted while in the middle of it. I have reviewed revision histories and it looks like Actian is the best merge target for Applications-By-Forms since Applications-By-Forms is mentioned on Actian but not on Ingres (database) (except for a See also link). I'll fix up the merge banners. I'd have to look a little deeper to decide whether this merge is a good idea. I simply suggested it as an WP:ATD when Applications-By-Forms was WP:PRODded. ~Kvng (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know a fair amount about the deep history of computer science, but databases are one of my larger blind spots. Nevertheless, it's rather easy to see than Ingres is bigger than Actian, and that the lead must cover this history, too.

New lead material:

In its early years, Ingres was an important milestone in the history of database development. Ingres began as a research project at UC Berkeley, starting in the early 1970s and ending in 1985.^[1] During this time Ingres remained largely similar to IBM's seminal System R in concept; it differed in more permissive licensing of source code, in being based largely on DEC machines, both under UNIX^[2] and VAX/VMS,^[3] and in providing QUEL as a query language instead of SQL. QUEL was considered at the time to run truer to Edgar F. Codd's relational algebra (especially concerning composibility), but SQL was easier to parse and less intimidating for those without a formal background in mathematics.^[4]

When ANSI preferred SQL over QUEL as a standard as part of the 1986 SQL standard (SQL-86), Ingres became less competitive against rival products such as Oracle until future Ingres versions also provided SQL.^[5] Many companies spun off of the original Ingres technology, including Actian itself, originally known as Relational Technology Inc., and the NonStop SQL database originally developed by Tandem Computers but now offered by Hewlett Packard Enterprise.

I've added two references, neither ideal, but both mitigated by having their own solid internal citation structure (one via quotes, one via reference notes). Unfortunately, I don't have direct access to the literature, and so I must defer to someone else to resolve these references down to their internal sub-references. Some of what I gleaned from those sources parallels material already present here, insufficiently cited (so you can view my blogish citations either as glass half full, or glass half empty, as you wish).

I know for myself that the expanded lead text provides exactly the kind of historical gestalt that makes a subject intelligible on a quick glance. Short version: Ingres got Betamaxed by IBM and Larry Ellison.

As I usually sign off after larger additions, I'm a tumbleweed editor contributing on the way by. I rarely return. Revise or revert at will.

One last remark: I don't know much about databases, but I do know enough to use Postgres almost exclusively to host my own applications, given the option. Good god how I love software that doesn't fall over at the first mild gust of adversity. — MaxEnt 00:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The pronunciation given (/ɪŋˈɡrɛs/ ing-GRESS) seems unlikely - I would expect it to be /ˈɪŋɡrɛs/ ING-gress with emphasis on the first syllable. John Womble (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]