Talk:Spatial database

Spatial Database and geodatabase

Spatial Database is a more general term than Geo-database and should be retained. Historically, there is a debate between the adjectives "Geo" and "Spatial". However recent trend prefers "Spatial". For example, NSF chose the adjective "Spatial" in renaming the "Geography and Regional Sciences" program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.34.46 (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. A spatial database is not proprietary, but is a distinct type of spatial data tool. A geodatabase is primarily an ESRI product, and does not have the same query ability, or complex tabular management that may be found in a spatially enabled database. These topics should be seperate. SCmurky (talk) 07:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the "Spatial Databox" product entry applies to this article. I have visited the linked page and it looks more like a web server to me, but I don't know the product, so I can not be sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.12.16.53 (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Spatial dataBase is more general than geodata base feels like the spatial data base is a super class and the geodata base is a sub class. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.13.124 (talk) 08:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The term geodatabase is also a bit proprietary - having been used by ESRI to describe a database that includes (sometimes discipline specific) spatial objects and operators for those objects. Spatial database is more general term and is probably correct for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.219.48 (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

"Spatial Database" in particular applies to any dimensionality; while "Geo-Database" somewhat implies a connection to the real world, i.e. 2D or 3D data models (on the spatial index / query key level, that is). So I'm opposed to a "full" merger; however it could make sense to include geo-databases in spatial databases. But there is also a lot to say about requirements specific to geodata, and optimizations possible on geodata, due to its physical properties. For example, euclidean distance is a physical bound for the distance. Such as restriction may not hold for arbitrary spatial databases. --Chire (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry: this should be a clear no since the term "Geodatabase" is the name of a product by ESRI - whereas "Spatial Database" is a proper general software description (actually it should be Spatial Database Management System for the software since Spatial Database includes the data). 75.152.163.213 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge Spatial Index

The article Spatial index is currently only a stub, and should IMHO be merged into this article, in particular to differentiate it from the more specialized Geo-Databases subject. --Chire (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - however it could be subsection. A Spatial Database is a software or a concept - while a Spatial Index is a data structure to query spatial data efficiently. 75.152.163.213 (talk) 21:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree too but I don't feel strongly about it. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

My instinct was to disagree, but then I realized there isn't too much content in Spatial index (nor would I expect a large article). I agree with a merge to a section of Spatial database. +mt 20:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree of merging spatial index but under some circumstances it can be added as a subsection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.55.135 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think merging spatial index as a subsection here would be a good idea; that subject is certainly a sub-area of the spatial database, and the current article ends up having to describe what a spatial database is, before it describes the index-specific information. MeekMark (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Example DDL and query

I think an example of the DDL required to create a simple spatial table, and sample SQL showing some features, would be quite helpful here. MeekMark (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable entry removed

I have removed the recent - probably self-promotional - addition for GeoSpark, as it lacked any independent source let alone an existing Wikipedia article based on such sources. Wikipedia is no venue to promote relatively new applications, and editors with a likely conflict of interest should follow the guideline at WP:COI. GermanJoe (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2018 (UTC)