Talk:Cloud database

Overview of offerings seems random and badly sourced

The part of the article that tries to enumerate current offerings seems rather random, and has little information as to why various database systems are or are not listed in a given quadrant.

• Example 1: Microsoft's special Microsoft hosted MS SQL Azure service is listed, but there is no information as to why other editions of MS SQL server are not listed in the left column as something that can be hosted in a cloud virtual machine. Does the article's author editor know it to be impossible or is he just lacking a "source" for it being possible.

• Example 2: The only information about running PostgresSQL in cloud VMs is a "source" which is just a bad journalistic rehash of a self-serving product announcement for someone trying to sell an "enhanced" user interface for managing PostgresSQL in a cloud context. Neither informative nor trustworthy.

This trend seems to permeate the whole table as it currently stands.

The table is a good classification system, but the current data points look dubious (and I don't know what they should be, I actually came to the article to find out).

Additionally, the article seems to assume (wrongly) that all virtual machine cloud hosting companies suffer from the Amazon EC2 specific limitation that such machines are not persistent by default. As this is a talk page, I will not go deeper into sources for this, than to note that most VPS hosting providers, as well as VM hosting companies such as GoGrid, Rackspace and ElasticHosts all default to making virtual machines persist as long as you are willing to pay for them. This assumption probably affects the classifications in the left column.

77.215.46.17 (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Article is much too promotional

This article appears to be a place to promote vendors offerings. I don't think there is any need for links to vendor's web sites. The vendor's web sites are not reliable. If we only include products with articles, then readers can go to the articles to find out more about the products. I propose all references to vendor web sites be removed. Jojalozzo 04:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with this criticism, and have removed most of the "examples" (as well as recent blatant advertising). Wikipedia is no textbook, and these examples don't add anything to an encyclopedic summary of the general topic (aside from name dropping various vendors and products). The technical concepts behind the various DB models should be described based on independent sources, not with an indiscriminate list of examples. GermanJoe (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)