Jump to content

Talk:Physical schema

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinion (removed)

[edit]

How about some good examples of both logical and subsequent physical data models?

"it was generally accepted that Oracle's architecture is best suited to enterprise & larger implementations," - This is opinion

This page appears to be biased toward Oracle DBMS' and provides a very simplistic view of Physical Data Models. No consideration is given to DBMS function or application use and the impact on PDM design.

Examples being OLTP (OnLine Transaction Processing) PDM's, EDW (Enterprise Data Warehouse) PDM's, OLAP PDM's or Data Mart PDM's.

"There are a great many other RDBMS systems out there, but these tend either to be legacy databases or used within academia such as universities or further education colleges." - Not fact. Opinion. Companies such as E-bay, facebook, tagged, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Verizon, AT&T, and a number of banks all use DBMS technologies not mentioned in this article.

IBM's DB2 and UDB, Teradata's DBMS, SQL Server, Netizza, Greenplum, MySQL all have different features which impacts which type of physical attribute may be represented in a PDM. Even within Oracle, there are two distinct offerings; Exadata for large scale DBMS installation and the basic Oracle DBMS offering.

The reference to Oracle should be removed from this page as should the references to the other DBMS'. The article should focus instead upon purpose and types of PDM: IDEF1X, IE, DM, etc. and perhaps talk about the methods or tools available to create a PDM.

This page seems to be more a discussion or even a sales presentation for RDBMS instances, not a discussion about the physical data model. Discussions should probably include the purpose of a physical model, the transformation of the logical model into a physical model, resoultion of sub-types, implementation of data types, physical instantiation of objects, space allocations, volumetrics and planning for growth. Lots of topics to discuss, not which RDBMS implementation we use. Also, physical models are not exclusive to relational modeling, so maybe this should also be more specific to a Relational Physical Model or the text should be more generic to include other types of databases, such as hierarchical. Dan Galvin 14:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dan, wholeheartedly agree - please do this. This page should be about what physical data architecture means, not a comparison of different RDBMSs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.106.149 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the opinion pieces. prat (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

// ---------------------- It's beyond ironic that there is no mention of NoSQL databases here, yet ALL of the biggest databases, including Facebook, Amazon, etc, are run primarily on non-SQL databases.

Also a terrible omission that no mention is made of trade-offs between fixed and variable string columns, the computational efficiencies vs size trade-offs of data types, or DB treatment of BLOB and XML data types. --Solidpoint (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Link titled "FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document" hosted at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/egov/documents/CRM.PDF

is unavailable. I got a 404 Error. If it is dead all the time, i would recommend it being replaced by a working (live) link, maybe archived at some other domain, ftp, or cached from somewhere.

If no such secondary reference is available, this invalid/inconsistent link must be deleted. --Compfreak7 (talk • contribs)

Yes, the Whitehouse archive link is dead.

And yes, this entry is nearly off-topic. As a current student, given the potential depth of the topic, a fairly concise definition, possibly couched as historical, with links to scholarly (or even publicly available enterprise) sources would suffice. As far as combining the entries for Physical data model and Physical Schema: yes. Neither one of them seems to be getting much attention. Combining them would give them a little TLC an be simpler to hit and maintain.--touiquette — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touiqette (talk • contribs) 04:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Physical data model. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Physical_schema&oldid=1208866839"