Voice of the DBA

Category: Editorial

  • The Desire for Control

    Do you want more or less knobs to turn?

    Most of the people working with SQL Server have some of that geek gene, the desire to control, change, and mold the environment in which they work into some new form. Some people build physical toys, and others work onvirtual tools, but there’s this desire for control for many of us.

    Each version of SQL Server has brought with it a great deal more control in terms of the metrics we get (DMVs, wait stats, etc.) as well as tuning knobs (sp_configure options, Resource Governor, plan hints, and more). It has become possible to exert more influence over how SQL Server runs than ever before, and I suspect we’ll get even more ways in the future.

    But is that what you want? As DBAs, do you want more control in how you work with SQL Server, and potentially a higher level of knowledge needed to tune an instance? I suspect many people would like more knobs to turn, but I wanted to ask the question this Friday:

    Do you want your efforts in tuning SQL Server to have more or less options?

    As a clarification, I don’t want to imply that your instance will perform at a lower level with less tuning options, but rather that Microsoft would invest more time into the automatic tuning and learning capabilities of the database engine. My thought would be that you check some configuration options at some level (instance, database, even batch), and the server then builds a more optimal execution plan, and balances the load better between all the clients. The server ends up doing most of the tuning work with a little guidance from you.

    The alternative is that you do more investigation, apply more knowledge, and tweak your code or a variety of settings to improve server performance. In essence, do you want to do more work to tune an instance or have the server do most of the work?

    I suspect more people want great flexibility in tuning and the ability to apply their own knowledge, but let us know this week.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

  • Why Can’t We Code?

    Maybe we need a new test for developers?

    I think that most of the developers or data professionals out there have been through a variety of types of interviews in their careers. You might have had technical interviews that asked you to write code, or maybe you’ve been quizzed on SQL Server trivia or asked to explain methods and properties. Maybe you’ve had interviews with managers that had you define a few database terms. Perhaps you’ve just had someone ask you the ten co

    mmon interview questions without requiring you to demonstrate any technical knowledge.

    No matter what you’ve experienced, I think that many people would agree that the hiring process needs work. It does a poor job of actually pre

    dicting if the new employee can produce quality code or manage servers. Why is that?

    Many companies have really tried to solve this. From the famous “How would you move Mt. Fuji?” questions at Microsoft to the common CS type questions at Google. Joel Spolsky has his own guerilla guide, which I assume has worked well for him, though on a much smaller scale. I think, however, that for the most part no one has come up with a good way to solve this issue.

    A friend sent me this piece recently: Why the New Guy Can’t Code. It’s a little heavy handed, but there was one quote in there that I thought made sense: “don’t interview anyone who hasn’t accomplished anything. Ever.” It’s so easy to set up your own website, design a database on your personal machine, even put an app out for sale, that there’s no excuse not to make some effort to accomplish something. Craig Farrall

    talked about building something in Looking for Work in SQL Server, as did Brandie Tarvin in Changing Career Gears. It’s also one of the things I talk about at the Modern Resume: show people what you’ve done.

    I don’t know that we’ll ever find a fool proof way to hire great employees, but hiring people that have proven themselves in the past, and can point to something they’ve done, is good start.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcasts

  • Economics

    Not a good day for this Cowboys fan.

    Today we have an editorial from Mar 22, 2006 as Steve is on vacation.

    Terrell Owens signs with the Cowboys and I’m not thrilled. As a longtime fan of Dallas, I’d have preferred that they get someone else, despite his talent. Too much baggage. Alfonso Soriano refuses to play outfield for the Nationals this week, disobeying his manager who asked him to go out there during a game. Lots of people are upset with this “spoiled” athlete who makes $10 million a year and won’t listen to his boss.

    There’s way more stories of this type of behavior than there are positive ones. But how do these individuals get away with this behavior and still command such high salaries?

    It’s called economics. There are many people, often sports or entertainment stars, that have a supply of something: talent. And with the demand out there to see them, the price goes up. It’s a simple graph from basic Economics 101, like the one shown below. I learned about this early in my college career, as the supply goes down, as in one or two superstar wide receivers in football, the price goes up. In this case to $10 million for Mr. Owens this year. If you can have that kind of demand for your services, than you can easily get more money. And it’s not limited to sports.

    Supply and demand often determines what we pay.

    I have a friend that manages a development team. This manager requires the team to read software development materials from the team library, which contains books, magazines, etc. that pertain to their business. Often there are magazines passed around and the developers are asked to read for an hour a week and note a sentence or two that shows they read something. My friend even gives them the hour during work hours as a way to encourage personal development and growth of the developers.

    Recently one developer said that they didn’t want to read one week. Since it was a busy week, the team working overtime, my friend didn’t complain too much. However the developer went further in saying they didn’t think they should have to read and that if they did, they should be able to pick anything, not just from the library. No suggestions or, hey, could you get a copy of Professional SQL Server 2005 Integration Services, nothing other than a complaint.

    My friend was a little put off by this. After all, my friend is trying to help the team grow, looking to ensure they do not become stagnant and wanting to foster a professional environment. And giving away work time to do it, not requiring the developers to find time at night or on the weekends.

    I’ve seen this behavior more and more over the last 7 or 8 years than the 7 or 8 prior to that that I’ve been in this business. As the demand for IT services has gone up, many people have gotten inflated salaries and the ego to go with them. Too many IT workers think they’re above some work or don’t think they need to improve or companies should place additional demands on them. This goes from requiring certifications or training to not being willing to help out in lesser skilled areas.

    Maybe I’m getting old. Maybe I’m from a different time, but I think that requiring you to keep learning isn’t a problem in IT. After all, technology changes rapidly and it benefits you. And requiring it on company time shouldn’t be an issue. Asking me to help out with a ticket queue and assigning ACL permissions to individuals won’t generate a complaint from me.

    Heck, it’s much easier than doing SQL work and the pay’s the same.

  • Ethics

    // // //

    It seems ethics are in short supply some days

    Today we have an editorial reprinted from April 3, 2006 as Steve is on vacation.

    We have heard lots of stories about hackers using social engineering or even paying employees to get information. It is not really amazing anymore and sadly, we kind of expect people to compromise their ethics when dollars are involved.

    What is even sadder is our leaders, the management of companies we work for, who are supposed to set an example for work, build pride in the company, and help it to grow, are expected to throw ethics out the window on a regular basis. This story about Morgan Stanley executives pressuring IT to buy certain products in order to get those vendors to bring their banking business is nothing new. In fact most of the IT people I’ve worked with are surprised when it isn’t some political decision such as this that decides which products they will use.

    I know that people often scratch each other’s backs. After all, each of us on a small scale usually wants to work with someone we know, trade favors, and show some loyalty to each other.

    But when you put out a bid, it gets frustrating for the people that work hard to find out what they think is best for the company, or the best solution for a problem and have that circumvented because someone got to go play golf or had tickets to a sporting event given to them.

    Or worse, the promise of a job or other financial compensation for steering business rather than awarding it. There are penalties for accepting gifts of this sort, and the article has some advice on avoiding issues if you are worried.

    I don’t pretend to have a solution. Nor do I think I would be immune to this. Andy, Brian, and I have spent 5 years trying to build a community we’re proud of, often putting the profit second or third on the list to having a place we are proud of running.

    I just wish it could be different.