I would assume that the rdbms tag is easily assumed for just about every question on dba.stackexchange.com.

For those questions specifically about non-relational DBMSen, the non-relational tag can be used.

Is the rdbms tag redundant? Should it be removed in edits and deprecated?

  • 1
    database is a good candidate for redundant list. See these questions are migrated from SO were 'database' tag is necessary but not here... May 13, 2011 at 7:22
  • Getting rid database gets my vote too :) May 13, 2011 at 17:35
  • @JackDouglas, @drachenstern - database tag has been removed from nine questions. Hope we are all agree with keeping rdbms tag. May 16, 2011 at 12:50
  • 1
    @Sandy - not me but I'm happy to be told I'm wrong :) May 16, 2011 at 14:20

2 Answers 2


I don't think its redundant.

Its the fact, almost every question in this site will be related to one way or other. We can make use of this tag to those specific questions were there is no specific database is applicable a.k.a

This tag will be suitable with tags like and

Hope this makes sense :)

@drachenstern - Creating synonym is not an option for this particular case. Its used for map look-alike tags to see dba tag synonyms so far.

What are tag synonyms? How do they work?
Tag Folksonomy and Tag Synonyms

  • 1
    Getting rid of rdbms gets my vote May 13, 2011 at 17:35
  • @Sandy ~ I still don't see, but this is why we have many moderators. I defer to you on this one, without question.
    – jcolebrand Mod
    May 16, 2011 at 4:24
  • 1
    @sandy - sorry I misread your answer, I thought you meant that there is no need for rdbms because it applies to virtually every question. I'd suggest a "non-relational" tag (if we dont have one already) for the rare exception - wouldn't that be more useful? May 16, 2011 at 13:05
  • @JackPDouglas - rdbms, nosql, object-model and other types of similar tags will be useful for questions like "I'm in a <situation>, is it best to use 'database1' or 'database2'; or do I need to consider 'database3'?" May 16, 2011 at 17:12
  • @JackPDouglas - yes, we can use non-relational if necessary... May 16, 2011 at 17:16
  • @Sandy - ok. Is your intention that every question will be tagged with a vendor tag (eg Oracle) or the rdbms tag, or object-relational and so on? May 16, 2011 at 17:20
  • @JackPDouglas - Yes. So far all questions follow this method, to ensure the audience/peers identify questions concerned with particular database at first glance in the list page. And it will be easy for experts to jump in answer, who subscribed those vendor tags. May 16, 2011 at 17:27

Personally I think the should go away.

The only answer in favor of the tag currently states:

almost every question in this site will be related to one way or other.

According to this logic the tag adds little to no value. Also I hope people answering a question don't need to be reminded that SQL Server is relational....

The biggest valid use case I see for this is in conjunction with questions. The normal method to add subcategories to a tag is adding a suffix. The tag is already so long I don't think works. Instead I propose tags like:

As a bonus, this would avoid and/or provide an antidote to recommendation questions that add the parent tag for every RDBMS they can think of.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .