Talk:DBM (computing)

Based on what I can find on the web, it appears that dbm is the correct capitalisation. Should this article be using {{lowercase}}? John Vandenberg 08:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

links to sleepycat in references are broken. just put a note next to the link -- perhaps somebody can find an alternative source?

Database engines don't use queries. There's a layer above the engines that handles the queries and invokes the db engine. dbm is mor of a db engine?

From this article: "While dbm and its derivatives are pre-relational databases — effectively a hash fixed to disk — in practice they can offer a more practical solution for high-speed storage looked up by-key as they do not require the overhead of connecting and preparing queries. This is balanced by the fact that they can generally only be opened for writing by a single process at a time. While this can be addressed by the use of an agent daemon which can receive signals from multiple processes, this does, in practice, add back some of the overhead."

(?) Should be removed or written here about db engines in general, which in turn has explanatory value for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.91.84 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

How can the list of "successors" be anything but a bunch of links to alternatives? How many in the list are actually derived from the original dbm code? twimoki (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Everything added by Erichansen1836 -- which is virtually everything since June 2015 -- should be deleted, as it is just him spamming his own product, "Joint Database Technology". This product is not noteworthy, and has been roundly criticized by many in the technical community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.46.40.253 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Everything indicates that Erichansen1836 (talk · contribs) is promoting his own original research:

• The section was born after Joint Database Technology was deleted ("Article about a company, corporation or organization, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject")
• The whole section is in the conditional tense
• Erichansen1836 is the sole redactor
• On this linkedin page, a person whose name is very similar to "Erichansen1836", presents himself as the inventor of the "Joint Database Technology - (ISAM-like, NoSQL)". This seems to indicate an undisclosed conflict of interest.
• There are no internal links to other pages. OTOH the author has linked other pages specifically to this section (e.g. on Flat file database: « See also: dbm DBM and Flat File databases working in tandem »)
• The only external link to a presentation of that "Joint Database Technology" is a discussion on perlmonks.org that was started by Erichansen1836. The project does not seem to raise a great level of enthusiasm, to say the least, many contributors have stressed the absence of concrete Perl code and examples ("Apparently, Joint Database Technology is still a castle in the air") and the lack of originality ("Sounds much like another implementation of an ISAM-like system", "I've done this. In fact, most DBMS systems grew out of this kind of good engineering", etc.).
• Erichansen1836 does his best to link from external sites to this section in order to give visibility and credibility to his idea. On perlmonks, his posts are signed "SEE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dbm (at Wikipedia) for the section: JOINT DATABASE TECHNOLOGY". Do a Google search for "Joint Database Technology wikipedia" and you will discover many posts that advertise Erichansen1836's ideas while linking to this section on this Wikipedia article.

It is beyond doubt that this both spam and original research and this has nothing to do on Wikipedia. I'm deleting the whole section. — Xavier, 20:49, 2 September 2017 (UTC)Reply