Category: Editorial

Some of us have experienced lots of strange issues while working with SQL Server. Some from poorly configured or coded systems, some from heavy workloads, and some from bugs in the code. Encountering and solving those problems, even if self-induced, is one way that we have learned about the best ways to ensure SQL Server performs extremely well under many situations.

Others of us have had few issues and found SQL Server to be a very stable and solid product. In fact, I often find someone posting about an issue has been running an instance for years without any issues until one day something breaks or reaches a tipping point. I’ve seen this with numerous instances that were installed with plenty of disk space and without log backups. They may run for a year or more before logs fill and cause issues.

It can be hard to plan for the unknown disasters that might be lurking in your system, but one thing that might help you think more widely about potential issues is reading posts about the issues others have encountered. Certainly plenty of people blog about these, and we often put out in our Database Weekly newsletter, but there are other good sources.

The CSS SQL Server Engineers write some interesting posts about issues they’ve solved. Availability Groups are important and harder to configure and manage than many people realize. I caught a really interesting post about strange behavior under high workloads. This was with In-Memory technology, which I am starting to see more people experiment with implementing. This is the type of post that might give you pause, but also help you plan for and be aware of an issue that could occur.

In this case, it’s a bug and a CU fixes the issue. Without knowing this, you might open your own case and spend time debugging the issue. Reading an article like this might trigger you to go back and check on it if you experience the issue. The bigger advantage I see here is there is a lot of information about how to measure and understand the performance of various parts of an AG system with code and linked articles here. While others might tell you there’s a CU to fix a specific issue, the knowledge you gain about how to dig into the performance of your AG setup could help you solve lots of other types of issues.

Keep learning and keep reading. There’s lots of amazing SQL Server information on the Internet for you, and we’re happy to keep bringing some of it to you at SQLServerCentral.

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Stitcher or iTunes.

Most of us have applied for a job at some point in our career. In my youth, this was finding a listing in a newspaper or on a storefront and then going in to apply in person. At times I didn’t really care what the job description was, as I needed a job. Usually the title was enough to decide if I wanted to be a “waiter” or “cashier” or “laborer”. I am somewhat glad those days are behind me, at least for the most part. My wife usually expects her fence builder and cook to be regularly available.

In the technology fields, we often have very detailed job descriptions. In fact, I think most of the job descriptions I see have had too much input and ask for more skills than any individual is likely to have. In my experience, if I meet at least 50% of the required skills, I apply. I’d encourage you to do the same, as many of the requirements are flexible as hiring managers realize they can’t find someone that meets 100% of their desires.

Today, I’m wondering if any of you ever look back at the job description that you were hired to fill. Does your current work match what was written when you applied? Did you end up doing more or less of what was listed? Or has the job evolved as you’ve been in this position. Would you still be qualified for this position? Over-qualified? Or maybe you feel you’re still not quite qualified enough?

I’m kidding about the last one, though there are always people searching for a challenge and enjoying the struggle of learning and growing their skills. In fact, some of the most talented people I know have had lots of success and still struggle with impostor syndrome, which I think drives them to be better. Or maybe some just have the Jerry Rice training habits.

Take a few minutes today and think about your job and the description that was written for it. Has it evolved, or is it what you expected?

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Stitcher or iTunes.

For all of my career, there has been a constant debate about the value of certifications. Early on I saw one boss move ahead because of his CNE (Certified Netware Engineer) credential. That got me moving in that direction, though I switched to an MCSE (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer) track once Windows gained prominence and I found myself working in that arena.

These days there seem to be less certifications around in one sense. Certainly Microsoft and other vendors are spending less effort building and maintaining a program. At the same time, there is a variety of different products that you can get certified in using online learning. A friend recently showed me the Redis University where you can complete courses and get a certificate. We even have Redgate University, designed to help you improve your ability to use our products.

Like many credentials, completing a course doesn’t mean you are an expert, or competent, or even qualified with a product. There are numerous stories of people holding credentials and being unable to perform simple tasks in the real world. I’d counter with the fact that there are plenty of people with lots of experience on paper that equally cannot perform fairly rudimentary tasks. I do think that people that have made an effort to complete some course have likely learned something.

Microsoft Philanthropies is experimenting with micro credentials, an idea of helping people to learn skills and tasks that aren’t equivalent to formal education, but perhaps can take the place of other educational opportunities, such as a college degree. It’s an interesting idea, and it fits nicely with my thoughts that your career requires continual learning and improvement, or as they put it, up-skilling.

There is a great quote in the article:  “Careers are no longer ladders. They are more like vines in a rainforest. You can swing on one and then grab another.” I think that’s true in technology, and likely true in many other fields as well. I’ve seen plenty of issues with workers trying to undertake year+ long programs to retrain in some other field, only to find out there aren’t enough jobs or the skills are becoming obsolete quickly.

The future, in my mind, is that we need to be adaptable and flexible. We should have some basic skills, like logical problem solving and communication, but the specific syntax and muscle memory to work on any particular implementation are something we need to pick up quickly and gain competence in without a long learning period. This doesn’t mean that expertise isn’t valued, but flexibility and the willingness to continue to improve skills over time is more valuable.

Will this replace traditional universities in our business? I don’t know, but I do think it could. There are still places where a formal education is valuable and useful, but I’m not sure if it matters in the field of technology. At the same time, unless organizations that hire individuals stop requiring four year degrees, I’m not sure this matters. I hope they do, because a degree says something about you, but not necessarily more than other experiences and efforts that you can undertake.

Steve Jones

Listen to the podcast at Libsyn, Stitcher or iTunes.