Voice of the DBA

Category: Editorial

  • Individual Contributions

    “Never underestimate what you can bring to the table.” – Rob Cooper, on StackOverflow.

    I read that and immediately went back to a time earlier in my career.  I worked in a large team of IT workers, with a variety of skills and experiences. Each of us had an area we specialized in (databases for me), but we had to cross train and handle calls and issues in other areas at times.  Being a diverse team of about 20 people, we all had noticeable strengths and weaknesses. Some people were talented in almost all areas and could figure things out. Some struggled and sought out the experts in areas outside their own constantly.

    We had one person in particular that was fairly low down on the skill level, and was in charge of a number of administrative-type tasks for the IT infrastructure. Things like basic group/user security, handling simpler AD tasks, things that you usually task to a junior level individual. I often heard others complaining that this person could not carry their own weight, or didn’t do enough work.

    However when this person went on vacation, and someone else had to fill in, I’d hear more complaints about having to do basic tasks, like managing groups or setting permissions.  I couldn’t  imagine the way a team would work if it was filled with highly talented, highly capable superstars; we’d never get any work done because of the constant complaining.

    We all have a role to fill at times in our lives. Sometimes it’s a high level role, and at times it’s a low level role. Each of us brings value for the work we do, and none of us is any “better” at life than any other. The lead developer might seem like they are more important than the secretary or the cleaning crew, but those other contributions are important as well. They’re valuable, and they should be appreciated.

    Steve Jones

  • The DBA Financial Analyst

    The DBA job is somewhat nebulous, with a variety of skills being needed, and the mix of those skills varying from company to company. As companies look to save money, and look to perhaps go with cloud computing or other types of hosted environments, are DBAs going to need to also perform financial calculations?

    I was reading a post on SQL Azure recently that talked about the cost of indexes. Not performance, or space, but actual real dollars and cents cost since indexes take up space and you are charged by the space you use. Adding extra indexes, or adding columns to indexes, or adding covering columns, can cost you real money if you have any large scale of resources.

    So does that mean that in addition to trying to determine what changes you can make to code to improve performance, or what new features might make sense to your applications, you need to also run some financial ROI calculation on the choices? Maybe PowerPivot was released just in time for all those virtual systems that might charge by the byte or cycle.

    As a DBA, I’ve had to budget, and try to determine  how to spend funds for hardware, balancing out choices for RAM v disk v CPU, and even comparing secondary servers for read-only scale out against a larger single server. However I typically don’t have to compare the cost of features in my analysis.

    I’ve sometimes wished I could pay for just one feature, and it’s starting to look like that might be something that could happen in the cloud. While the possibility if mix and match features intrigues me, the extra work to add cost to my calculations along with performance makes me think the cloud might be more trouble than it’s worth.

    Steve Jones

  • When To Touch

    It seems that every product that has an underlying database has documentation that says not to modify the schema?  Do you always pay attention to that warning? The PSS blog at Microsoft says that for Reporting Services you ought to definitely keep your hands off, and gives some good reasons why you should.

    However what about those other products? Dynamics, SAP, JD Edwards, and other common types of software that many companies use. Can you modify them at all? Perhaps.

    We hear about the build vs. buy debate in software, but there’s also the modify vs. workaround argument. I was reminded of that from the PSS blog. There are times that you might be tempted to change things in a database built a software company, or add objects to that database. In many cases this can be seen as action that voids any support contract with the vendor, and more often than not they won’t want to give permission to make changes.

    I can understand that, as it can substantially increase the support costs for a software company. However I also think that a blanket policy prohibiting changes is a bad idea.

    I think there are plenty of things that you can do, especially with the latest versions of SQL Server, that could be useful “touches” that improve the use of a database. Adding indexes judiciously to improve performance of some queries is one very light touch that can add tremendous benefits. Adding reporting objects in another schema could help you extend functionality to get more value from the software.

    Touching a database that you didn’t build should be done carefully, lightly, and with a lot of testing, and it can be something that creates a much more valuable system.

    Steve Jones

  • Rating Bugs

    Is this a big deal? Michigan is the wrong shape, reported on Connect as a problem with the Report Builder 3.0. I guess is depends on whether or not you are showing Michigan in one of your reports. If you are, it’s probably a big deal, and no matter what data is on the report, plenty of people will never get beyond the incorrect shape.

    Is this a critical bug? Is it a must fix for SP1? Does it deserve a high level of priority?

    Triaging bugs like this and assigning a priority has to be extremely hard. On one hand this should be a simple fix, but after the maintenance plan fiasco in SQL Server 2005 SP2, I’ve heard a few SQL Server developers say there are no “simple fixes.” However this bug is not critical to most people; it won’t cause downtime or data loss. For those people that need it, however, it could be extremely critical. It also a little embarrassing for any report that has the wrong shape visible in a map control.

    Should this be fixed before bugs that cause downtime? What if this takes 2 days and those bugs take 2 weeks? Or two months? You could easily get into the situation where a low priority bug keeps getting pushed back because there are more important issues to deal with. I’m not specifically talking about this bug, but rather using it as an example of an annoying, but otherwise non-critical issue.

    As companies work on software, I’m sure there’s some developer on every team that finds items like this one to be very annoying bugs, and would probably just fix it if they had time. Or permission. To me, this is a great reason why you ought to give developers some free time to work on things that they find interesting. My guess is many little bugs like this that can be fixed quickly, would get worked into the schedule.

    Developers like fixing things, and they like easy wins. Give them a chance to work on them.

    Steve Jones