What is really the matter with the 'database'? by Eduardo Bellani
How can we talk straight about a concept when the term that should signify it is equivocated all the time?
I think this is a big part of the problem on discussions about
databases. Here are some ways that the term database is widely used
in the tech industry:
- A server
I'll access the database in prod.- An instance of a DBMS
We are running PG 9.3 locally.- A design
My database will have a user table and a product table.- A DBMS
Let's use MongoDB as a database!- A storage strategy
I'll store these as protobufs in my database, it will be faster!- A group of propositions
- (ok, almost no one uses it like this, but
it is what
databaseshould mean).
Here is a more authoritative source saying the same thing:
you should be aware that people often use the term database when they really mean DBMS (in either of the foregoing senses). Here is a typical example: “Vendor X’s database outperformed vendor T s database by a factor of two to one.” This usage is sloppy, and deprecated, but very, very common. (The problem is: If we call the DBMS the database, what do we call the database? Caveat lector!) (Date 2003)
How can we solve this problem if we don’t start by correcting ourselves?
Figure 1: Cologne Cathedral stands intact amidst the destruction caused by Allied air raids, 9 March 1945