Voice of the DBA

Tag: Friday Poll

  • The Copy Cat Poll

    This editorial was originally published on Aug 3, 2012. It is being re-run as Steve is on vacation.

    One of the interesting facts I saw a few years ago talked about storage in enterprise environments. There was research that showed many enterprise applications had 6 or 7 copies of their large databases inside the organization. In addition to the production copy, there were many other copies in use, resulting in an explosion of growth. That wasn’t surprising, and it was one of the drivers for implementing compression in many databases.

    While the cost of storage is constantly coming down, it’s still expensive for enterprise class hardware, especially in a large SAN device. Today I wanted to ask those of you that work on real world systems to make a quick count of your own system, and let us know. I can’t decide if 6 copies of a production database is high, or low.

    How many copies, on average, of your production databases are in your company?

    I suppose you could count backups as a copy, since it’s disk space usage and you have to pay for it. If you count backups, let us know, but I’m thinking just about the test systems, development systems, HA or DR systems that might receive copies of the data. Some of those secondary systems might be in use for other purposes, such as reporting from readable secondaries in an AlwaysOn scenario. Whether they are or not, they are still copies of your database.

    I used to think that four or five copies would be a lot, but with the advances in technology that allow different DR options, and the cheap local storage available on today’s desktops and laptops, I wonder if seven or eight copies might be more accurate.

    Take a count today; you might surprise yourself with the results.

    Steve Jones

  • Have You Designed a Database from Scratch?

    One of the things that I try to regularly promote is the #SQLNewBlogger project from Ed Leighton-Dick (and #SQLNewBlogger hashtag on Twitter). In keep a column open scanning for the tag and try to respond to those that post. I also write a series of posts under that tag, mainly beginner type posts, that showcase things I think are good, basic topics that I’d want a DBA or developer to know about SQL Server. These are exactly the types of posts that you write for your next resume (or next hiring manager).

    I saw recently someone begin their blogging journey with a new post about designing a database. What struck me was this person with a lot of experience noted they had never designed a database from scratch. I’m sure that most of you have worked with a database, and have even modified various objects inside of a schema. Certainly you’ve changed the code of stored procedures or functions. I’m even sure many of you have modified tables, adding columns where you need them. After all, that’s a favorite first technique for many people that need a place to store data.

    Probably the majority of you have built tables, at least temporary tables. I’m sure you spent a few minutes thinking about the columns, datatypes, etc. I’d also hope that most of you have added indexes and constraints to tables. Those are certainly skills that more people should better understand, especially the developers that work on software powered  by SQL Server. Above all, please learn how to index OLTP tables.

    However, have you designed a database from scratch? Not a standalone database, but a database the actually has an API or application built against it. Have you tried to use the database and found places where your modeling was lacking? Did others complain about your design?

    I know that lots of school coursework requires people to design parts of a database, but what about a full, complete database. One that fulfills the requirements to actually manage a set of data well? I’ve done a few, though admittedly, with input and help from other DBAs and developers. I am better for that, and I think that a good design requires some interaction and input from others.

    With that in mind, whether you’ve built one or now, what about tackling this as a project for your own blog? Certainly there are some good problem sets out there, but I’d actually give you a new one if you’d like. The SQL Saturday site for PASS has a database behind it. How would you design a database, given the requirements that you need to support that site, and actually generate out the XML feed for the Guidebook app? Maybe that would be a fun, multi-part series that looks at your decisions for the various entities required. You’d learn something and get lots of feedback.

    If you’re like to publish a series here at SQLServerCentral, let us know. We’d love to have some design series on databases that back applications, especially if you have a side project with an application.

    Steve Jones

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 3.2MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • Happy New Year 2016

    Happy New Year from everyone here at SQLServerCentral and Redgate Software!

    I do hope you’re not working, and enjoying a start to 2016. If you do happen to read this, I hope you are relaxing and have a big smile on your face.

    This year we’ve got a new version of SQL Server coming, and I’m sure lots of exciting new technologies we’ll see released. It’s a new beginning, and a chance to move forward. With that in mind, a simple question today.

    What new technology, language, or skill do you want to improve in 2016?

    Today is a great day to make a resolution and start growing your skills, for fun or profit, in 2016.

    The Voice of the DBA Podcast

    Listen to the MP3 Audio ( 1.3MB) podcast or subscribe to the feed at iTunes and LibSyn.

  • An Impressive SQL Server

    This editorial was originally published on May 6, 2011. It is being re-run for the Christmas holiday.

    Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

    Recently I heard about one SQL Server with 1TB of RAM and another one that was handling over 10,000 transactions a second. I read a note about a 1.1PB database, built on SQL Server to hold data from telescopes. That particular data warehouse is producing 1.4TB a day. I know it’s mostly binary data, but that’s a lot of 1s and 0s being stored in SQL Server.

    Over the years I’ve heard regular complaints and concerns from executives about SQL Server scalability. Those complaints have dwindled, but I think there are people in the relational database world that still question SQL Server’s ability to handle high volumes or data sets.

    This Friday, I wanted to see what might change their mind, or maybe what might make you view SQL Server differently. While I suspect most of you are SQL Server fans, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have concerns at times about how far you can push SQL Server. The question this week is:

    What company would impress you if SQL Server backed their main systems?

    This isn’t scientific, and I’m not defining which systems impress you. It could be their web site, their supply chain management, their largest data warehouse, or anything else. What company talking about using SQL Server in one of their systems would impress you? And which system would you like to see backed by SQL Server?

    When I think about a lot of data, high volumes and rates, I think of a few things. The stock market, sports, and Amazon. If Amazon switched their website and ordering systems to SQL Server, I’d be impressed. If Major League Baseball, or the National Football League were to run all their statistical systems on SQL Server, I’d be impressed. With all the fantasy sports fans out there, the gathering and processing live data for real time calculations of performance, would be impressive.

    I’ve left out other companies. Wal-Mart using SQL Server for supply chain management would be impressive. UPS managing packages on SQL Server would be something. I’m sure have your own ideas, and let us know this week.

    Steve Jones