The naming of JuliaDB.jl


[quote=“StefanKarpinski, post:14, topic:3564, full:true”]
Honestly, we’ve tried forever to come up with a different name for JuliaDB, but nothing else has stuck[/quote]
DistributedBytes.jl as suggested above?


I think that @ChrisRackauckas was suggesting “Julia Distributed Bytes” as a backronym for JuliaDB rather than suggesting that we change the name to DistributedBytes.jl. Personally, I’d be rather confused if I found a package named distributed bytes and it was a database. OTOH, I’m not sure what I would expect it to be.


I almost feel a non descriptive name like “Pandas” or “Hadoop” or something like that would be best for JuliaDB.jl (i.e. the package). It seems like a product that doesn’t just emulate something that exists already, and it combines a lot of different things into quite a unique, new thing, and I almost feel that any combination of existing terms will just point folks in the wrong direction as to what the package actually is.


Yeah, I was partially kidding to address @davidanthoff’s concerns that the name should have distributed in there. I say partially because I too am at least slightly confused by the name, and at least that interpretation worked :slight_smile:.


That should be done anyways IMO


How about Judid for Julia Distributed Database.

(Or are we over the whole “let’s just use some first name” thing ? :slight_smile: )


I’m pretty happy with JuliaDB.jl for a name.


A Julia version of Pandas? Judid?


Judas? [ducks and runs]


JuliaFin, JuliaRun, JuliaPro… JuliaFlow?


Honestly, I’m still amazed that no one has jumped on the blindingly obvious JuliaSet.jl :wink:



  JuliaDB          JuliaFlex  
       DTable           FlexTable


Juice.jl (The glass looks like a database. That’s why)


Sorry for the off-topic but are there any plans for the core team to officially support the low-level libraries for the main relational databases? For example, the most complete PostgreSQL library ( is abandonware for almost year and lacks useful features (like pub/sub).


Half-joking of course (especially since I can’t think of anything better either), but shouldn’t it be avoided to use Julia in the package name? :wink:


One must assume that “the package is connected to, or endorsed by, contributors to the Julia language itself” :slight_smile:


What anout ODBC.jl?


From my perspective, using ODBC drivers for web apps is very rare. I don’t think it’s a common approach with any modern web development stack (certainly not Ruby, PHP, JavaScript, etc). Not even ASP.NET as far as I remember.

But I guess this can be a way to go if we can’t have up to date libraries wrapping the C API. Thanks for the tip.


why is that?


Why not call it something like Ensemble.jl or PersistentData.jl. I’m less concerned with the name for this specific package, but more about taking away JuliaDB, which in my opinion should be a Github organization that is the entrance point for DB, persistent storage, etc. related Julia packages. I know it is possible to have JuliaDB/JuliaDB.jl but this sends, to some extent, the wrong message, e.g. JuliaFEM/JuliaFEM.jl.

A problem with Github organizations is that only 1 level is supported. E.g. it would be nice to have something like JuliaMCMC with Mamba.jl, Klara.jl, Stan.jl, etc. but speaking for Stan I can see that we might need JuliaMCMC/Stan/Stan.jl, JuliaMCMC/Stan/PSIS.jl in the not too distant future.


Is JuliaFEM.jl “connected to, or endorsed by, contributors to the Julia language itself.”?