As of June 2024, the most popular database management system (DBMS) worldwide was Oracle, with a ranking score of *******; MySQL and Microsoft SQL server rounded out the top three. Although the database management industry contains some of the largest companies in the tech industry, such as Microsoft, Oracle and IBM, a number of free and open-source DBMSs such as PostgreSQL and MariaDB remain competitive. Database Management Systems As the name implies, DBMSs provide a platform through which developers can organize, update, and control large databases. Given the business world’s growing focus on big data and data analytics, knowledge of SQL programming languages has become an important asset for software developers around the world, and database management skills are seen as highly desirable. In addition to providing developers with the tools needed to operate databases, DBMS are also integral to the way that consumers access information through applications, which further illustrates the importance of the software.

As of June 2024, the most popular relational database management system (RDBMS) worldwide was Oracle, with a ranking score of *******. Oracle was also the most popular DBMS overall. MySQL and Microsoft SQL server rounded out the top three.

The statistic displays the most popular SQL databases used by software developers worldwide, as of **********. According to the survey, ** percent of software developers were using MySQL, an open-source relational database management system (RDBMS).

As of June 2024, the most popular commercial database management system (DBMS) in the world was Oracle, with a ranking score of ****. MySQL was the most popular open source DBMS at that time, with a ranking score of ****.

The Databases_DBMS_2024 dataset provides information about leading databases with a worldwide footprint.

The dataset contains records of 417 databases and has information about the DBMS type, multi-model capability, vendor, and vendor country.

The dataset also contains data on DBMS score and rankings, from DB-engines.com.

Kagglers can utilise the dataset to explore the

• Composition of DBMS Types and Multi-model capability
• Distribution of DBMS vendors and Vendor countries, etc.
• Trends and patterns in DBMS rankings and scores

As of December 2022, relational database management systems (RDBMS) were the most popular type of DBMS, accounting for a ** percent popularity share. The most popular RDBMS in the world has been reported as Oracle, while MySQL and Microsoft SQL server rounded out the top three.

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of top-cited scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, co-authorship adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions and a composite indicator (c-score). Separate data are shown for career-long and, separately, for single recent year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 174 sub-fields according to the standard Science-Metrix classification. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists with at least 5 papers. Career-long data are updated to end-of-2022 and single recent year data pertain to citations received during calendar year 2022. The selection is based on the top 100,000 scientists by c-score (with and without self-citations) or a percentile rank of 2% or above in the sub-field. This version (6) is based on the October 1, 2023 snapshot from Scopus, updated to end of citation year 2022. This work uses Scopus data provided by Elsevier through ICSR Lab (https://www.elsevier.com/icsr/icsrlab). Calculations were performed using all Scopus author profiles as of October 1, 2023. If an author is not on the list it is simply because the composite indicator value was not high enough to appear on the list. It does not mean that the author does not do good work.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DATABASE HAS BEEN PUBLISHED IN AN ARCHIVAL FORM AND WILL NOT BE CHANGED. The published version reflects Scopus author profiles at the time of calculation. We thus advise authors to ensure that their Scopus profiles are accurate. REQUESTS FOR CORRECIONS OF THE SCOPUS DATA (INCLUDING CORRECTIONS IN AFFILIATIONS) SHOULD NOT BE SENT TO US. They should be sent directly to Scopus, preferably by use of the Scopus to ORCID feedback wizard (https://orcid.scopusfeedback.com/) so that the correct data can be used in any future annual updates of the citation indicator databases.

The c-score focuses on impact (citations) rather than productivity (number of publications) and it also incorporates information on co-authorship and author positions (single, first, last author). If you have additional questions, please read the 3 associated PLoS Biology papers that explain the development, validation and use of these metrics and databases. (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002501, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000384 and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000918).

Finally, we alert users that all citation metrics have limitations and their use should be tempered and judicious. For more reading, we refer to the Leiden manifesto: https://www.nature.com/articles/520429a

Top 10 Programming Lang, IDE & Database (2004-2021)

These data are gathered from PYPL, TOPDB & Top IDE index, which can be accessed on pypl.github.io. The more a language, IDE or database is searched, the more popular the language is assumed to be. It is a leading indicator. The raw data comes originally from Google Trends. If you believe in collective wisdom, the PYPL Popularity of Programming Language index, TOPDB index & Top IDE index can help you decide which language to study, or which one to use in a new software project.

Data Structure & Visualization

Here I attach the data in 3 formats: Excel (.xlsx), CSV (.csv) & JSON (.json). The data shows how many shares & popularity of the programming language, database & IDE based on Google Trends. Below are example of line chart race that I build using these data.

Top 10 Programming Language Based on PYPL Index (2004-2021)

Top 10 IDE Based on TOP IDE Index (2004-2021)

Top 10 Databases Based on TOPDB Index (2004-2021)

🍔 Lintang Wisesa

Facebook | Twitter | Google+ | Youtube | GitHub | Hackster

NoSQL Software Market Outlook

The global NoSQL software market size was valued at approximately USD 6 billion in 2023 and is projected to reach around USD 20 billion by 2032, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14% during the forecast period. This market is driven by the escalating need for operational efficiency, flexibility, and scalability in database management systems, particularly in enterprises dealing with vast amounts of unstructured data.

One of the primary growth factors propelling the NoSQL software market is the exponential increase in data volumes generated by various digital platforms, IoT devices, and social media. Traditional relational databases often struggle to handle this surge efficiently, prompting organizations to shift towards NoSQL databases that offer more flexibility and scalability. The ability to store and process large sets of unstructured data without needing a predefined schema makes NoSQL databases an attractive choice for modern businesses seeking agility and speed in data management.

Moreover, the proliferation of cloud computing services has significantly contributed to the growth of the NoSQL software market. Cloud-based NoSQL databases provide cost-effective, scalable, and easily accessible solutions for enterprises of all sizes. The pay-as-you-go pricing model and the capacity to scale resources based on demand have made NoSQL databases a preferred option for startups and large enterprises alike. The seamless integration of NoSQL databases with cloud infrastructure enhances operational efficiencies and reduces the complexities associated with database management.

Another critical driver is the increasing adoption of NoSQL databases in various industry verticals such as retail, BFSI, IT, and healthcare. These industries require robust data management solutions to handle large volumes of diverse data types. NoSQL databases, with their flexible data models and high performance, cater to these requirements efficiently. In the retail sector, for example, NoSQL databases are used to manage customer data, product catalogs, and transaction histories, enabling more personalized and efficient customer services.

Regionally, North America holds a significant share of the NoSQL software market due to the presence of major technology companies and a mature IT infrastructure. The rapid digital transformation across enterprises in the region, alongside substantial investments in big data analytics and cloud computing, further fuels market growth. Additionally, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by the expanding IT sector, increased adoption of cloud services, and significant investments in digital technologies in countries like China and India.

Graph Databases Software has emerged as a crucial component in the landscape of NoSQL databases, particularly for applications that require understanding complex relationships between data entities. Unlike traditional databases that store data in tables, graph databases use nodes, edges, and properties to represent and store data, making them ideal for scenarios where relationships are as important as the data itself. This approach is particularly beneficial in fields such as social networking, where the ability to analyze connections between users can provide deep insights into social dynamics and influence patterns. As businesses increasingly seek to leverage data for competitive advantage, the demand for graph databases is expected to grow, driven by their ability to efficiently model and query interconnected data.

Type Analysis

The NoSQL software market is segmented into various types, including Document-Oriented, Key-Value Store, Column-Oriented, and Graph-Based databases. Document-oriented databases, such as MongoDB, store data in JSON-like documents, offering flexibility in data modeling and ease of use. These databases are widely used for content management systems, e-commerce applications, and real-time analytics. Their ability to handle semi-structured data and scalability features make them a popular choice among developers and enterprises seeking agile database solutions.

Key-Value Store databases, such as Redis and Amazon DynamoDB, store data as a collection of key-value pairs, providing ultra-fast read and write operations. These databases are ideal for applications requiring high-speed data retrieval, such as caching, session manag

A guide to choosing the most suitable database types for data analytics across different industries, including examples of common databases.

A large-scale gene expression database capturing cellular responses to thousands of perturbations.

Context

IMDB (Internet Movie Database) is one of the most popular web sites, or databases, about movies, TV shows and similar. IMDB's Top 250 lists also important feature for considering good movies. Rankings are calculated with users' votes. For more IMDB's pollmaster account shares previous years IMDB Top 250 lists. Top 250 lists changes all the time, so that the lists are created for December 31st, midnight PST of that year.

Content

This dataset contains IMDB Top 250 lists from 1996 to 2020 with every movie's basic information; release year, ranking, score, stars, etc.

Acknowledgements

This data scraped from IMDB, and you can reach scraping part from here

Inspiration

Time travel... You can look into lists for last 25 years. Analyze best movies for voters, genre preferences, most successful directors, stars, ranking changings over time et cetera. There are lots of things to do. Be creative and visualize them.

This dataset includes bibliographic information for 501 papers that were published from 2010-April 2017 (time of search) and use online biodiversity databases for research purposes. Our overarching goal in this study is to determine how research uses of biodiversity data developed during a time of unprecedented growth of online data resources. We also determine uses with the highest number of citations, how online occurrence data are linked to other data types, and if/how data quality is addressed. Specifically, we address the following questions:

1.) What primary biodiversity databases have been cited in published research, and which

 databases have been cited most often?

2.) Is the biodiversity research community citing databases appropriately, and are

 the cited databases currently accessible online?

3.) What are the most common uses, general taxa addressed, and data linkages, and how

 have they changed over time?

4.) What uses have the highest impact, as measured through the mean number of citations

 per year?

5.) Are certain uses applied more often for plants/invertebrates/vertebrates?

6.) Are links to specific data types associated more often with particular uses?

7.) How often are major data quality issues addressed?

8.) What data quality issues tend to be addressed for the top uses?

Relevant papers for this analysis include those that use online and openly accessible primary occurrence records, or those that add data to an online database. Google Scholar (GS) provides full-text indexing, which was important to identify data sources that often appear buried in the methods section of a paper. Our search was therefore restricted to GS. All authors discussed and agreed upon representative search terms, which were relatively broad to capture a variety of databases hosting primary occurrence records. The terms included: “species occurrence” database (8,800 results), “natural history collection” database (634 results), herbarium database (16,500 results), “biodiversity database” (3,350 results), “primary biodiversity data” database (483 results), “museum collection” database (4,480 results), “digital accessible information” database (10 results), and “digital accessible knowledge” database (52 results)--note that quotations are used as part of the search terms where specific phrases are needed in whole. We downloaded all records returned by each search (or the first 500 if there were more) into a Zotero reference management database. About one third of the 2500 papers in the final dataset were relevant. Three of the authors with specialized knowledge of the field characterized relevant papers using a standardized tagging protocol based on a series of key topics of interest. We developed a list of potential tags and descriptions for each topic, including: database(s) used, database accessibility, scale of study, region of study, taxa addressed, research use of data, other data types linked to species occurrence data, data quality issues addressed, authors, institutions, and funding sources. Each tagged paper was thoroughly checked by a second tagger.

The final dataset of tagged papers allow us to quantify general areas of research made possible by the expansion of online species occurrence databases, and trends over time. Analyses of this data will be published in a separate quantitative review.

United States agricultural researchers have many options for making their data available online. This dataset aggregates the primary sources of ag-related data and determines where researchers are likely to deposit their agricultural data. These data serve as both a current landscape analysis and also as a baseline for future studies of ag research data. Purpose As sources of agricultural data become more numerous and disparate, and collaboration and open data become more expected if not required, this research provides a landscape inventory of online sources of open agricultural data. An inventory of current agricultural data sharing options will help assess how the Ag Data Commons, a platform for USDA-funded data cataloging and publication, can best support data-intensive and multi-disciplinary research. It will also help agricultural librarians assist their researchers in data management and publication. The goals of this study were to establish where agricultural researchers in the United States-- land grant and USDA researchers, primarily ARS, NRCS, USFS and other agencies -- currently publish their data, including general research data repositories, domain-specific databases, and the top journals compare how much data is in institutional vs. domain-specific vs. federal platforms determine which repositories are recommended by top journals that require or recommend the publication of supporting data ascertain where researchers not affiliated with funding or initiatives possessing a designated open data repository can publish data Approach The National Agricultural Library team focused on Agricultural Research Service (ARS), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and United States Forest Service (USFS) style research data, rather than ag economics, statistics, and social sciences data. To find domain-specific, general, institutional, and federal agency repositories and databases that are open to US research submissions and have some amount of ag data, resources including re3data, libguides, and ARS lists were analysed. Primarily environmental or public health databases were not included, but places where ag grantees would publish data were considered. Search methods We first compiled a list of known domain specific USDA / ARS datasets / databases that are represented in the Ag Data Commons, including ARS Image Gallery, ARS Nutrition Databases (sub-components), SoyBase, PeanutBase, National Fungus Collection, i5K Workspace @ NAL, and GRIN. We then searched using search engines such as Bing and Google for non-USDA / federal ag databases, using Boolean variations of “agricultural data” /“ag data” / “scientific data” + NOT + USDA (to filter out the federal / USDA results). Most of these results were domain specific, though some contained a mix of data subjects. We then used search engines such as Bing and Google to find top agricultural university repositories using variations of “agriculture”, “ag data” and “university” to find schools with agriculture programs. Using that list of universities, we searched each university web site to see if their institution had a repository for their unique, independent research data if not apparent in the initial web browser search. We found both ag specific university repositories and general university repositories that housed a portion of agricultural data. Ag specific university repositories are included in the list of domain-specific repositories. Results included Columbia University – International Research Institute for Climate and Society, UC Davis – Cover Crops Database, etc. If a general university repository existed, we determined whether that repository could filter to include only data results after our chosen ag search terms were applied. General university databases that contain ag data included Colorado State University Digital Collections, University of Michigan ICPSR (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research), and University of Minnesota DRUM (Digital Repository of the University of Minnesota). We then split out NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) repositories. Next we searched the internet for open general data repositories using a variety of search engines, and repositories containing a mix of data, journals, books, and other types of records were tested to determine whether that repository could filter for data results after search terms were applied. General subject data repositories include Figshare, Open Science Framework, PANGEA, Protein Data Bank, and Zenodo. Finally, we compared scholarly journal suggestions for data repositories against our list to fill in any missing repositories that might contain agricultural data. Extensive lists of journals were compiled, in which USDA published in 2012 and 2016, combining search results in ARIS, Scopus, and the Forest Service's TreeSearch, plus the USDA web sites Economic Research Service (ERS), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Rural Development (RD), and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). The top 50 journals' author instructions were consulted to see if they (a) ask or require submitters to provide supplemental data, or (b) require submitters to submit data to open repositories. Data are provided for Journals based on a 2012 and 2016 study of where USDA employees publish their research studies, ranked by number of articles, including 2015/2016 Impact Factor, Author guidelines, Supplemental Data?, Supplemental Data reviewed?, Open Data (Supplemental or in Repository) Required? and Recommended data repositories, as provided in the online author guidelines for each the top 50 journals. Evaluation We ran a series of searches on all resulting general subject databases with the designated search terms. From the results, we noted the total number of datasets in the repository, type of resource searched (datasets, data, images, components, etc.), percentage of the total database that each term comprised, any dataset with a search term that comprised at least 1% and 5% of the total collection, and any search term that returned greater than 100 and greater than 500 results. We compared domain-specific databases and repositories based on parent organization, type of institution, and whether data submissions were dependent on conditions such as funding or affiliation of some kind. Results A summary of the major findings from our data review: Over half of the top 50 ag-related journals from our profile require or encourage open data for their published authors. There are few general repositories that are both large AND contain a significant portion of ag data in their collection. GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility), ICPSR, and ORNL DAAC were among those that had over 500 datasets returned with at least one ag search term and had that result comprise at least 5% of the total collection. Not even one quarter of the domain-specific repositories and datasets reviewed allow open submission by any researcher regardless of funding or affiliation. See included README file for descriptions of each individual data file in this dataset. Resources in this dataset:Resource Title: Journals. File Name: Journals.csvResource Title: Journals - Recommended repositories. File Name: Repos_from_journals.csvResource Title: TDWG presentation. File Name: TDWG_Presentation.pptxResource Title: Domain Specific ag data sources. File Name: domain_specific_ag_databases.csvResource Title: Data Dictionary for Ag Data Repository Inventory. File Name: Ag_Data_Repo_DD.csvResource Title: General repositories containing ag data. File Name: general_repos_1.csvResource Title: README and file inventory. File Name: README_InventoryPublicDBandREepAgData.txt

Our world is in the midst of unprecedented change—climate shifts and sustained, widespread habitat degradation have led to dramatic declines in biodiversity rivaling historical extinction events. At the same time, new approaches to publishing and integrating previously disconnected data resources promise to help provide the evidence needed for more efficient and effective conservation and management. Stakeholders have invested considerable resources to contribute to online databases of species occurrences. However, estimates suggest that only 10% of biocollections are available in digital form. The biocollections community must therefore continue to promote digitization efforts, which in part requires demonstrating compelling applications of the data. Our overarching goal is therefore to determine trends in use of mobilized species occurrence data since 2010, as online systems have grown and now provide over one billion records. To do this, we characterized 501 papers that use openly accessible biodiversity databases. Our standardized tagging protocol was based on key topics of interest, including: database(s) used, taxa addressed, general uses of data, other data types linked to species occurrence data, and data quality issues addressed. We found that the most common uses of online biodiversity databases have been to estimate species distribution and richness, to outline data compilation and publication, and to assist in developing species checklists or describing new species. Only 69% of papers in our dataset addressed one or more aspects of data quality, which is low considering common errors and biases known to exist in opportunistic datasets. Globally, we find that biodiversity databases are still in the initial stages of data compilation. Novel and integrative applications are restricted to certain taxonomic groups and regions with higher numbers of quality records. Continued data digitization, publication, enhancement, and quality control efforts are necessary to make biodiversity science more efficient and relevant in our fast-changing environment.

Top ten most used biodiversity databases (see S2 Table for a comprehensive list).

Approximately ** percent of the surveyed software companies in Russia mentioned PostgreSQL, making it the most popular database management system (DBMS) in the period between February and May 2022. MS SQL and MySQL followed, having been mentioned by ** percent and ** percent of respondents, respectively.

Graph Database Market size was valued at USD 2.86 Billion in 2024 and is projected to reach USD 14.58 Billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 22.6% from 2026 to 2032. Global Graph Database Market DriversThe growth and development of the Graph Database Market is attributed to certain main market drivers. These factors have a big impact on how Graph Database are demanded and adopted in different sectors. Several of the major market forces are as follows:Growth of Connected Data: Graph databases are excellent at expressing and querying relationships as businesses work with datasets that are more complex and interconnected. Graph databases are becoming more and more in demand as connected data gains significance across multiple industries.Knowledge Graph Emergence: In fields like artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics, knowledge graphs—which arrange information in a graph structure—are becoming more and more popular. Knowledge graphs can only be created and queried via graph databases, which is what is causing their widespread use.Analytics and Machine Learning Advancements: Graph databases handle relationships and patterns in data effectively, enabling applications related to advanced analytics and machine learning. Graph databases are becoming more and more in demand when combined with analytics and machine learning as businesses want to extract more insights from their data.Real-Time Data Processing: Graph databases can process data in real-time, which makes them appropriate for applications that need quick answers and insights. In situations like fraud detection, recommendation systems, and network analysis, this is especially helpful.Increasing Need for Security and Fraud Detection: Graph databases are useful for fraud security and detection applications because they can identify patterns and abnormalities in linked data. The growing need for graph databases in security solutions is a result of the ongoing evolution of cybersecurity threats.

Database of bibliographic details of over 9,000 references published between 1951 and the present day, and includes abstracts, journal articles, book chapters and books replacing the two former separate websites for Ian Stolerman's drug discrimination database and Dick Meisch's drug self-administration database. Lists of standardized keywords are used to index the citations. Most of the keywords are generic drug names but they also include methodological terms, species studied and drug classes. This index makes it possible to selectively retrieve references according to the drugs used as the training stimuli, drugs used as test stimuli, drugs used as pretreatments, species, etc. by entering your own terms or by using our comprehensive lists of search terms. Drug Discrimination Drug Discrimination is widely recognized as one of the major methods for studying the behavioral and neuropharmacological effects of drugs and plays an important role in drug discovery and investigations of drug abuse. In Drug Discrimination studies, effects of drugs serve as discriminative stimuli that indicate how reinforcers (e.g. food pellets) can be obtained. For example, animals can be trained to press one of two levers to obtain food after receiving injections of a drug, and to press the other lever to obtain food after injections of the vehicle. After the discrimination has been learned, the animal starts pressing the appropriate lever according to whether it has received the training drug or vehicle; accuracy is very good in most experiments (90 or more correct). Discriminative stimulus effects of drugs are readily distinguished from the effects of food alone by collecting data in brief test sessions where responses are not differentially reinforced. Thus, trained subjects can be used to determine whether test substances are identified as like or unlike the drug used for training. Drug Self-administration Drug Self-administration methodology is central to the experimental analysis of drug abuse and dependence (addiction). It constitutes a key technique in numerous investigations of drug intake and its neurobiological basis and has even been described by some as the gold standard among methods in the area. Self-administration occurs when, after a behavioral act or chain of acts, a feedback loop results in the introduction of a drug or drugs into a human or infra-human subject. The drug is usually conceptualized as serving the role of a positive reinforcer within a framework of operant conditioning. For example, animals can be given the opportunity to press a lever to obtain an infusion of a drug through a chronically-indwelling venous catheter. If the available dose of the drug serves as a positive reinforcer then the rate of lever-pressing will increase and a sustained pattern of responding at a high rate may develop. Reinforcing effects of drugs are distinguishable from other actions such as increases in general activity by means of one or more control procedures. Trained subjects can be used to investigate the behavioral and neuropharmacological basis of drug-taking and drug-seeking behaviors and the reinstatement of these behaviors in subjects with a previous history of drug intake (relapse models). Other applications include evaluating novel compounds for liability to produce abuse and dependence and for their value in the treatment of drug dependence and addiction. The bibliography is updated about four times per year.

Contaminating sequences in public genome databases is a pervasive issue with potentially far-reaching consequences. This problem has attracted much attention in the recent literature and many different tools are now available to detect contaminants. Although these methods are based on diverse algorithms that can sometimes produce widely different estimates of the contamination level, the majority of genomic studies rely on a single method of detection, which represents a risk of systematic error. In this work, we used two orthogonal methods to assess the level of contamination among National Center for Biotechnological Information Reference Sequence Database (RefSeq) bacterial genomes. First, we applied the most popular solution, CheckM, which is based on gene markers. We then complemented this approach by a genome-wide method, termed Physeter, which now implements a k-folds algorithm to avoid inaccurate detection due to potential contamination of the reference database. We demonstrate that CheckM cannot currently be applied to all available genomes and bacterial groups. While it performed well on the majority of RefSeq genomes, it produced dubious results for 12,326 organisms. Among those, Physeter identified 239 contaminated genomes that had been missed by CheckM. In conclusion, we emphasize the importance of using multiple methods of detection while providing an upgrade of our own detection tool, Physeter, which minimizes incorrect contamination estimates in the context of unavoidably contaminated reference databases.