consolidation of multiple rows
cano...@telecom-digest.zzn.com
I've got a table raw_Companies
--nname
--address
--phone
--fax
--email
--homepage
with no keys defined
and a table Companies
with the same structure but with nname declared as a primary key.
Once raw_Companies gets loaded up I see where there are multiple rows
with the same value for nname but missing data in the other fields.
One row may have an address and phone while another will have only an
email, while a third may have an address and a homepage.
I need a way to take the rows in raw_Companies with the same nname and
consolidate them into one composite row inserted into Companies.
So from
IBM----1234 Main Street,Rochester,NY----\N----\N----...@ibm.com----
www.ibm.com
IBM----\N----212-745-9324----212-745-0158----\N----\N
in raw_Companies to
IBM----1234 Main
Street,Rochester,NY----212-745-9324----212-745-0158----
sa...@ibm.com----www.ibm.com
in Companies
Any help/hints/suggestions/code would be greatly appreciated.
TIA,
Still-learning Steve
TheSQLGuru
select nname, max(address), max(phone)...
from raw_companies
group by nname
--
Kevin G. Boles
Indicium Resources, Inc.
SQL Server MVP
kgboles a earthlink dt net
<cano...@telecom-digest.zzn.com> wrote in message
news:4f04fa64-b865-4bf1...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Ed Prochak
> Greetings all,
>
> I've got a table raw_Companies
> --nname
> --address
> --phone
> --fax
> --homepage
>
> with no keys defined
> and a table Companies
> with the same structure but with nname declared as a primary key.
>
> Once raw_Companies gets loaded up I see where there are multiple rows
> with the same value for nname but missing data in the other fields.
> One row may have an address and phone while another will have only an
> email, while a third may have an address and a homepage.
>
> I need a way to take the rows in raw_Companies with the same nname and
> consolidate them into one composite row inserted into Companies.
>
> So from
>
> IBM----\N----212-745-9324----212-745-0158----\N----\N
>
> in raw_Companies to
>
> IBM----1234 Main
> Street,Rochester,NY----212-745-9324----212-745-0158----
> sa...@ibm.com----www.ibm.com
>
> in Companies
>
> Any help/hints/suggestions/code would be greatly appreciated.
>
> TIA,
>
> Still-learning Steve
A table like raw_Companies is called a staging table and Companies is
the production table.
If you want the data to load automatically into companies, a PL/SQL
procedure or trigger is one way to do it.
You can audit the changes (e.g. put in a log table messages like 'ABC
Inc. : street address changed from 1234 Main Street to 123A Main
Street") as well as logging errors (e.g., Update failed), checking
data consistency (Zip code 11234 is invalid for Ohio), and even
outside data validation (look up address in the USPS yields Zip code
but also indicates the address is at least valid).
So it's time to step out of straight SQL and into PL/SQL.
HTH,
Ed
--CELKO--
values for the same attribute, say a phone number, which one do you
pick or does it matter? If not, then use this skeleton:
SELECT company_name, MAX(phone_nbr), MAX(..), ..
FROM RawData
GROUP BY company_name;
else find the conflicts:
SELECT company_name AS conflicting_data
FROM RawData
GROUP BY company_name
HAVING COALESCE (NULLIF(COUNT (DISTINCT phone_nbr), 1), NULLIF(COUNT
(DISTINCT ..), 1), .. ) IS NOT NULL ;
2) If two of the rows in your raw data staging table have the same
value for the same attribute, do you need to know or do you just use
it?
3) If all of the rows in your raw data have NULLs for an attribute, do
you use the NULL or want to now about it?
There are a lot of games we can play with a HAVING clause on the raw
data. You might want to get a copy of THINKING IN SETS and look at
Chapter 10, "Scrubbing Data with Non-1NF Tables" for some more
ideas.
--CELKO--
I'll go one step further and tell the guy took at Melissa Data address
scrubing products.
hpuxrac
> 1) If two of the rows in your raw data staging table have different
> values for the same attribute, say a phone number, which one do you
> pick or does it matter? If not, then use this skeleton:
>
> SELECT company_name, MAX(phone_nbr), MAX(..), ..
> FROM RawData
> GROUP BY company_name;
>
> else find the conflicts:
>
> SELECT company_name AS conflicting_data
> FROM RawData
> GROUP BY company_name
> HAVING COALESCE (NULLIF(COUNT (DISTINCT phone_nbr), 1), NULLIF(COUNT
> (DISTINCT ..), 1), .. ) IS NOT NULL ;
>
Makes sense ... perhaps the OP can give us some more background of
how and why info gets into the raw table.
> There are a lot of games we can play with a HAVING clause on the raw
> data. You might want to get a copy of THINKING IN SETS and look at
> Chapter 10, "Scrubbing Data with Non-1NF Tables" for some more
> ideas.
What is "Thinking in sets"? and who wrote it ... not familiar with
that title.
Ruud de Koter
One could hardly be familiar with the title, as it is copyrighted in
2008 (any decent internet bookstore will show you). Quite
unsurprisingly, it is written by Joe Celko. I don't think he has any
reason to be ashamed of some shameless self-promotion...
Keep up the good work, mr. Celko!
Ruud.
--CELKO--
http://www.elsevierdirect.com/product.jsp?isbn=9780123741370
and me.
--CELKO--
Nor do I! I remember being asked by a priest if I was ever bothered
by evil thoughts. "**Bothered** by them? No."
cano...@telecom-digest.zzn.com
> by evil thoughts. "**Bothered** by them? No."
<troll>
It's good to go to the experts - I've often wondered if they keep the
really good ones all to themselves.
</troll>
cano...@telecom-digest.zzn.com
--- from Ed
> A table like raw_Companies is called a staging table
> and Companies is the production table.
Thank you Ed for supplying the standardized naming for the these
tables, makes
googling (v.?) more accurate...
--- from CELKO
>...Chapter 10...
Thank you , all these suggestions are helpful. There'll be scrubbing
o'plenty happening shortly.
As for the data, I'm merging ~20 xls totalling >200Krows into this
table, using Perl to scrub the data per field perl line b4 loading
into the staging table.
I'll give these suggestions a try shortly.
Thanks to all who responded,
Still-Learning Steve
DA Morgan
Thinking In Sets was written by Joe Celko.
If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
addressing: Joe Celko.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
hpuxrac
Not a name I am familiar with.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
> University of Washington
> damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org
But at least you got to put your url out again eh?
DA Morgan
>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>
> Not a name I am familiar with.
Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
Enlighten yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wikipedia%22+and+%22Joe+Celko%22&btnG=Google+Search
--
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Jerry Stuckle
>>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
>>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>>
>> Not a name I am familiar with.
>
> Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>
> Enlighten yourself:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
> http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wikipedia%22+and+%22Joe+Celko%22&btnG=Google+Search
>
Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's who
have never heard of Joe Celko.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Shakespeare
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstu...@attglobal.net> schreef in bericht
news:VLWdneP7PpBXqUza...@comcast.com...
But at least they should know Wikipedia ;-))
Shakespeare
DA Morgan
> DA Morgan wrote:
>>>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
>>>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>>>
>>> Not a name I am familiar with.
>>
>> Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>>
>> Enlighten yourself:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
>> http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wikipedia%22+and+%22Joe+Celko%22&btnG=Google+Search
>>
>
> Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's who
> have never heard of Joe Celko.
Well right now I can only name one. <g>
Of course you are correct. There are top notch programmers that
don't know who Chris Date is. There are top notch programmers
that don't know who Dennis Ritchie and Ray Boyce are either no
doubt.
Though I suspect you could put the names of those "top notch"
programmers on a 3x5 card.
--CELKO--
LOL! Programmers, sure; I know some who are not sure who the
president is. DBAs, probably not :) I am teaching a graduate
Database Course at a small local college from the 8-th edition of a
popular textbook. I am not just quoted in a few places, but my name
is used in data in the examples. Unfortunately, I am shown as knowing
Java in one of the tables, which I don't.
Serge Rielau
"joe_celko" which failed on me after I broke DB2 ;-)
It contains "SQL for Smarties" queries.
Cheers
Serge
--
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab
Kees Nuyt
<sri...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>My first run in with Joe was 12 years ago in form of a QA suite named
>"joe_celko" which failed on me after I broke DB2 ;-)
>It contains "SQL for Smarties" queries.
Joe Celko's books are interesting, but they deserve a
better editor.
--
( Kees
)
c[_] Help beautify our dumps. Throw away something pretty. (#169)
joel garry
I'd have to root about, but I think I have an email from Joe from
about 15 years ago. (You can assume he made a positive impression for
me to remember that!)
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://blog.dreamhosters.com/2008/01/15/dreamhost-accidently-bills-customers-7500000/
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> DA Morgan wrote:
>>>>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
>>>>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>>>>
>>>> Not a name I am familiar with.
>>>
>>> Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>>>
>>> Enlighten yourself:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
>>> http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wikipedia%22+and+%22Joe+Celko%22&btnG=Google+Search
>>>
>>
>> Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's
>> who have never heard of Joe Celko.
>
> Well right now I can only name one. <g>
>
> Of course you are correct. There are top notch programmers that
> don't know who Chris Date is. There are top notch programmers
> that don't know who Dennis Ritchie and Ray Boyce are either no
> doubt.
>
> Though I suspect you could put the names of those "top notch"
> programmers on a 3x5 card.
Quite incorrect. Right off the top of my head I can probably name a
dozen I know personally who haven't heard of him. He's well known in
some circles, but definitely not all.
Jerry Stuckle
I'm not arguing about your qualifications at all. But I can name some
excellent DBA's for Fortune 500 companies who haven't heard of you.
These are guys with 20+ years of experience on huge databases running on
mainframes.
hpuxrac
Joe probably you do know a lot. It looks like you started doing
things in the relational world after I was already working in the
database area. Like many I paid dues in the mainframe area ( IMS and
DB2 ) before moving into the oracle area.
Real world experience doing complicated designs teaches you a lot of
things. Codd and Date were the authors of the texts and mathematical
theory that was most useful to me.
If you changed or advanced the fundamentals based on those authors
contributions to relational theory then yes I am unaware of those
contributions.
I find the curious allegations of Captain Morgan off target as usual.
But I expect him to reply at least several more times in this thread.
After all it gets his name and website posted several more times on
cdos.
hpuxrac
> --CELKO-- wrote:
> >>> There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's who have never heard of Joe Celko. <<
>
> > LOL! Programmers, sure; I know some who are not sure who the
> > president is. DBAs, probably not :) I am teaching a graduate
> > Database Course at a small local college from the 8-th edition of a
> > popular textbook. I am not just quoted in a few places, but my name
> > is used in data in the examples. Unfortunately, I am shown as knowing
> > Java in one of the tables, which I don't.
>
> I'm not arguing about your qualifications at all. But I can name some
> excellent DBA's for Fortune 500 companies who haven't heard of you.
> These are guys with 20+ years of experience on huge databases running on
> mainframes.
>
Lots of people in the oracle side also apparently.
Bingo,
Alex Kuznetsov
> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
> >>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>
> >> Not a name I am familiar with.
>
> > Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>
> > Enlighten yourself:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
> >http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
>
> Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's who
> have never heard of Joe Celko.
But clearly every good programmer and every good DBA knows who
Torvalds is. Also IMO every good programmer knows who Stroustrup is.
--CELKO--
I am not aware of anything either :) I think it is funny that I get
accused of being too theoretical in some of the newsgroups when my
(few) academic publications were in Software Engineering and not very
important at all.
I have always written for the working SQL guys or consulted for
companies developing SQL products. I did find out that some of the
tricks I popularized in SMARTIES were optimized for in several
products, as a direct result of the development teams using the book
for test suites.
Jerry Stuckle
I'd say wrong on both counts. There are a lot of programmers who have
never heard of either - because they aren't into Linux or C++, for instance.
I would suspect more know of Stroustrup, but even that's a relatively
small number of all programmers.
DA Morgan
Next time you come to Seattle I'll take you over to Starbucks and
introduce you. <g>
DA Morgan
DB2? Broken? Tell me it ain't so. <g>
Have I got a story to tell you about zLinux.
On second thought you probably don't want to hear it. <g>
Have a great weekend.
DA Morgan
> DA Morgan wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> DA Morgan wrote:
>>>>>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
>>>>>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a name I am familiar with.
>>>>
>>>> Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>>>>
>>>> Enlighten yourself:
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
>>>> http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Wikipedia%22+and+%22Joe+Celko%22&btnG=Google+Search
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and DBA's
>>> who have never heard of Joe Celko.
>>
>> Well right now I can only name one. <g>
>>
>> Of course you are correct. There are top notch programmers that
>> don't know who Chris Date is. There are top notch programmers
>> that don't know who Dennis Ritchie and Ray Boyce are either no
>> doubt.
>>
>> Though I suspect you could put the names of those "top notch"
>> programmers on a 3x5 card.
>
> Quite incorrect. Right off the top of my head I can probably name a
> dozen I know personally who haven't heard of him. He's well known in
> some circles, but definitely not all.
The operative phrase here is "top notch." If they ever took even a basic
class on normalization they could not have missed the name Boyce. If
they learned more in C than "Hello World" they'd know who Dennis is.
Jerry Stuckle
Not necessarily. A lot of great DBA's know normalization but don't know
Boyce. And these are DBA's who manage databases in the hundreds of
terabyte range, running sometimes tens of thousands of operations a
second. They learned normalization techniques and maybe even heard of
Boyce and Codd. But they have no idea who they were.
And while they were famous 20 years ago, a lot of people who have
learned C in the last 10 years or more have never heard of either
Kernighan or Ritchie.
Michael Austin
Unfortunately I know far to many "so-called" DBA's who "manage" 250+TB
databases or OLTP databases that do thousands of txn/minute that have no
clue about normalization or database design or the nuances of SQL
programming. Managing databases, designing databases and writing SQL
are really the three sides of the same coin... (yes, a coin is
3-dimensional) Each is necessary, but you can **do** one without
completely knowing and understanding the other. (Since a coin is an
inanimate object does it *know* it has 3 sides?) It is helpful if you
have some understanding of the each, but in reality it is not necessary.
Sadly we are the ones who answer a lot of SQL howto questions in
CDM,CDOS and MPSP from those who call themselves DBA's and may have
heard the names of these "legends of technology".
The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
"certified".
Michael Austin -
and I have heard of all of these guys... including Joe and even have
(and read) some of their books. :) :)
"While commoditization may improve a company on Wall Street, over the
last few years, it has stagnated the innovation in that technology.
Nothing but the color of the box, price and customer loyalty
differentiate many of the current offerings in computing technologies. --MA"
Jerry Stuckle
I'm not talking thousands of transactions a minute. I'm talking TENS OF
THOUSANDS ever SECOND. A much higher order of magnitude than you have.
To do this successfully, you need to be a great DBA - and these are.
They have to be to be in the business and companies (mostly Fortune 500)
they are in. And they have to be able to design databases well - and
they need to know when to break the normalization rules for performance
reasons.
But these people don't ask questions. The know the answers already.
And, if they don't, no one does.
To be a fair DBA you don't need to know everything. But to be a great
DBA, you've GOT to understand the design, coding and administration of
databases. Someone may know one part really well. But that doesn't
make him a great DBA.
> The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
> "certified".
>
None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing it
long before certifications were around.
> Michael Austin -
> and I have heard of all of these guys... including Joe and even have
> (and read) some of their books. :) :)
> "While commoditization may improve a company on Wall Street, over the
> last few years, it has stagnated the innovation in that technology.
> Nothing but the color of the box, price and customer loyalty
> differentiate many of the current offerings in computing technologies.
> --MA"
>
Tony Rogerson
news:v6c3t3p86c6kpsghe...@dim53.demon.nl...
> On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:36:32 -0500, Serge Rielau
> <sri...@ca.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>>My first run in with Joe was 12 years ago in form of a QA suite named
>>"joe_celko" which failed on me after I broke DB2 ;-)
>>It contains "SQL for Smarties" queries.
>
> Joe Celko's books are interesting, but they deserve a
> better editor.
They deserve a bin more like.
And as to the content being his originally, why do you think he hangs out in
the news groups so much?
At least in one of the google PDF sample chapters (I won't waste money) he
credits a number of folk - suprisingly they are all on the SQL Server
forums.
--
Tony Rogerson, SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/tonyrogerson
[Ramblings from the field from a SQL consultant]
http://sqlserverfaq.com
[UK SQL User Community]
Tony Rogerson
> addressing: Joe Celko.
Celko - the great forum clown.
Actually he isn't that well know, go to any conference and ask and folk will
tell you who? There are also a ton of folk (the majority) who don't even use
community forums like this one - does not make them bad.
Celko is a content jocky - the only thing he's popularised is nested sets
and he even pinched that idea from somebody else - search, there is a
discussion somewhere on the nested sets origin.
He's certainly not respected anymore; in the SQL Server forums he's
ridiculed and ignore by most now - treaten as the village idiot because of
his lack of acceptance on how the product works and his very old very dated
canned answers that are always getting him into trouble.
Kees Nuyt
<tonyro...@torver.net> wrote:
>"Kees Nuyt" <k.n...@nospam.demon.nl> wrote in message
>news:v6c3t3p86c6kpsghe...@dim53.demon.nl...
>>
>> Joe Celko's books are interesting, but they deserve a
>> better editor.
>
>They deserve a bin more like.
>
>And as to the content being his originally, why do you think he hangs out in
>the news groups so much?
Yes, he bundles solutions from a lot of other people,
and compares their pros and cons.
That saves me a lot of time and effort of digging in
archives. Much in the same way a historian can spend
several years in archives and present the results in a
concise way I can digest in a few days or weeks. That
deserves some credit.
>At least in one of the google PDF sample chapters (I won't waste money) he
>credits a number of folk - suprisingly they are all on the SQL Server
>forums.
Of course I can't be sure he always credits the authors
of all solutions, but there are lots of credits in the
books I read.
Not all solutions are ideal, there's more than one road
to Rome. But the discussion helps me to choose or
discard the ones that wouldn't work for me and find a
better approach.
The texts are sloppy sometimes. E.g. he more than once
cuts and pastes one example to another and forgets to
apply the required adjustments. In that respect books
from other authors are often better.
DA Morgan
I would disagree with your characterization of them as "great DBAs."
I know that might be your impression of them. And I've no doubt they
can install, patch, and backup and restore without crashing and burning.
But it takes more than that to be "great."
You don't know normalization if you don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
What you are describing is the competent self-taught ... not the
"great."
All "great" lawyers go to law school.
All "great" surgeons go to medical school.
All "great" engineers to go college/university.
Only in our profession is great defined by the fact that so far
the bridges you've built haven't killed anyone ... well lately.
DA Morgan
>> The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
>> "certified".
>
> None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
> knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing it
> long before certifications were around.
We've a mixed crowd on this thread ... MySQL, Oracle, and SQL Server
so we need to be careful about what we claim and how it will be
interpreted by different audiences.
MySQL certification?
SQL Server certification may be important to finding jobs. I don't
know the market well enough to comment and given my proximity to
Redmond my view may be skewed.
Oracle certification, at least in my part of the planet is a waste as
it won't get you a job and teaches much that is incorrect.
I wouldn't open my mouth for my dentist if she had the equivalent
skill set of someone that gets a certificate in a software program.
DA Morgan
>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>
> Celko - the great forum clown.
You must be a very humble man Tony. You've so much to be humble about.
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
>>> "certified".
>>
>> None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
>> knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing
>> it long before certifications were around.
>
> We've a mixed crowd on this thread ... MySQL, Oracle, and SQL Server
> so we need to be careful about what we claim and how it will be
> interpreted by different audiences.
>
> MySQL certification?
>
ANY certification. These guys (and gals) have been DBA's much longer
than MySQL - or even SQL Server - has been around, much less
certifications for them. Not sure when Oracle started up.
> SQL Server certification may be important to finding jobs. I don't
> know the market well enough to comment and given my proximity to
> Redmond my view may be skewed.
>
Only for clueless employers. Proven ability to do the job is more
important for knowledgeable ones.
Certification means only that you can pass a test, not that you can do
the job. Just like driving - passing a written test only means you read
the book, not that you can handle the vehicle.
> Oracle certification, at least in my part of the planet is a waste as
> it won't get you a job and teaches much that is incorrect.
>
> I wouldn't open my mouth for my dentist if she had the equivalent
> skill set of someone that gets a certificate in a software program.
Ditto.
Jerry Stuckle
That is a completely asinine comment. You don't know them; you don't
know their background or their jobs, you don't know their training and
you don't know the quality of work they do.
Yet you say they are not great DBA's because they aren't familiar with
Boyce's name? I've seen stupid and small minded in this group before,
but that tops the cake.
> I know that might be your impression of them. And I've no doubt they
> can install, patch, and backup and restore without crashing and burning.
> But it takes more than that to be "great."
>
And you have no idea what my background is. For your information, I've
been programming for over 40 years. I've been working with RDB's for
around 25 years - I started while working for IBM in the early 80's.
And I've been teaching sql and database administration to Fortune 500
companies for around 15 years.
I know a great dba when I see one. And I know a small minded idiot when
I see one. Your comments do NOT show you are a great DBA.
> You don't know normalization if you don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
> What you are describing is the competent self-taught ... not the
> "great."
>
Who said they don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form? They know how to
normalize a database. They know the rules for each of the 5 normal
forms. The fact YOU call it Boyce-Codd does not mean everyone does.
> All "great" lawyers go to law school.
> All "great" surgeons go to medical school.
> All "great" engineers to go college/university.
> Only in our profession is great defined by the fact that so far
> the bridges you've built haven't killed anyone ... well lately.
Small minded people make small minded comments.
Tony Rogerson
Don't worry Denial Again; I hold you in the same albeit less extreme light
as celko, i.e. somebody stuck in the classroom with little if any real
industrial experience of SQL Server.
Tony Rogerson
I almost wish I could earn money like that out of other people, alas I have
dignity and respect for the efforts those who post those solutions first
have made.
The guy is little more than a corner shop "technie", regurgitating content
from people who have done all the hard work.
Less face it - has anything "original" come out from this guy in the last 10
years; stuff he has come up with and not just plagiarised from the public
forums - the answer imho is NO.
Tony
--CELKO--
Then why do I keep getting speaking invitations from database, data
management, data warehousing, etc. conferences, decade after decade?
Somebody must have heard of me! Or else I am working too cheap
And why I am earning hundreds of dollars in and revenue for a blog
site that does nothing but post my newsgroup replies? That is really
working too cheap!
>> There are also a ton of folk (the majority) who don't even use community forums like this one - does not make them bad. <<
Those folks are disappearing. The younger IT people are using the
Internet when they have a problem or just to surf around. We old
farts reach for a paper manual.
They don't necessarily get active in a Newsgroup, but they Google them
a lot. Not too long ago, one of the regulars here remarked that the
volume of postings was down. I agree with the theory that more people
find the answers for themselves in the archives, without posting. Not
so many "Do my homework for me!" people as we had a few years ago.
What failure to use the Online Community does is to make them weak.
They find themselves locked into one product (even down to one
version!), one industry and even one niche in that industry. Someone
already posted a remark about certifications versus ability. They
have no idea how their work compares to the best of the trade and
bethink they are just fine.
>> Celko is a "content jockey" - the only thing he's popularized is nested sets and he even pinched that idea from somebody else - search, there is a discussion somewhere on the nested sets origin. <<
No, not quite true. The earliest mention of Nested Sets I found was
short article in a Nordic or Dutch SQL newsletter in the 1970's or
early 1980's. After that, I wrote or collected all the standard
coding tricks for it and brought out a best-seller (well, for a techie
book; nobody has optioned the film and video rights for a musical).
Just off the top of my head, among other things I popularized (or
extended):
1. Original self-join versions of RANK and DENSE_RANK which lead to
the new OLAP functions.
2. Use of CASE expressions to replace IF-THEN-ELSE procedural code.
3. Use of CASE expressions in DDL for complex business rules.
4. Use of a Sequence table to replace WHILE-DO procedural code.
5. "Celko's Medians" back when Chris Date and I did "Dueling Database"
articles in DBMS and DBP&D.
6. "Celko's Relational Division", again back in the DBMS and DBP&D
days.
7. Established formatting conventions used by several magazine and
book publishers. I helps to have some of the first regular magazine
columns on a topic.
8. Promoted awareness of ISO Standards and how to use them (8601 and
11179 in particular) among working programmers.
9. Promoted awareness of scales and measurement theory among working
programmers. Tho in fairness, this has been of more sue to data
modelers.
10. Use of Calendar and Report Range tables. Notice that the term
"Calendar table" stuck.
11. The term "Auxiliary table" and related programming techniques for
table-driven as opposed to computational code. Notice that the term
"Auxiliary table" stuck.
12. Rediscovery of interpolation to replace computational code (Data
warehouse statistical uses; you won't see it in the OLTP newsgroups).
13. The term "Lasagna Code" back in my Software Engineering days.
14. The phrase "Automobiles, Squids & Britney Spears" has escaped the
DB world and is showing in other places. That is weird to me.
15. Worked with several different vendors on their SQL products (most
of them are gone now).
16. Served on ANSI X3H2 for a decade.
17. Wrote one of the only Database books (trade or text) to stay in
print over ten years.
18. Wrote over 800 articles in the trade press.
19. My original contributions to Data Science is my taxonomy of
encoding schemes. My taxonomy of key types might also count, but it
is not that original.
20. The one project I wish I had time to formalize is the use of
induction to prove SQL code correct (I am a big fan of Dijkstra, et
al). I am not sure if anyone else is doing it so that could my PhD
with it.
I'll stop at 20 and get lunch.
Alex Kuznetsov
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > DA Morgan wrote:
> >> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> >>>>> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>>>>>>> If you know the names Date and Codd you should know who you are
> >>>>>>>> addressing: Joe Celko.
>
> >>>>>>> Not a name I am familiar with.
>
> >>>>>> Says much about your attitude toward our profession.
>
> >>>>>> Enlighten yourself:
> >>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Celko
> >>>>>>http://www.dbmsmag.com/artin301.html#A000009
>
> >>>>> Not necessarily. There are a lot of top notch programmers and
> >>>>> DBA's who have never heard of Joe Celko.
>
> >>>> Well right now I can only name one. <g>
>
> >>>> Of course you are correct. There are top notch programmers that
> >>>> don't know who Chris Date is. There are top notch programmers
> >>>> that don't know who Dennis Ritchie and Ray Boyce are either no
> >>>> doubt.
>
> >>>> Though I suspect you could put the names of those "top notch"
> >>>> programmers on a 3x5 card.
>
> >>> Quite incorrect. Right off the top of my head I can probably name a
> >>> dozen I know personally who haven't heard of him. He's well known in
> >>> some circles, but definitely not all.
>
> >> The operative phrase here is "top notch." If they ever took even a basic
> >> class on normalization they could not have missed the name Boyce. If
> >> they learned more in C than "Hello World" they'd know who Dennis is.
>
> > Not necessarily. A lot of great DBA's know normalization but don't know
> > Boyce.
>
> I would disagree with your characterization of them as "great DBAs."
>
> I know that might be your impression of them. And I've no doubt they
> can install, patch, and backup and restore without crashing and burning.
> But it takes more than that to be "great."
>
> You don't know normalization if you don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
> What you are describing is the competent self-taught ... not the
> "great."
>
Strange. In our trade most great people are largely self taught in the
areas they are great in - the industry is new, and people are coming
up with innovations all the time.
Linus Torvalds came up with lots of really cool stuff when he wasn't
even a Master. Sergey Brin and Larry Page do have PhDs, and they came
up themselves with what makes them great.
Returning to normalization, it is not a very complex theory. When I
was getting my education, it did not exist yet, but if it did, it
would be taught in my first year, and it would be an easy course. In a
top notch university you have to learn a lot of more advanced math to
get your Master's degree. More to the point, for me as a development
lead, as well as for many DBAs, normalization is just one of many
challenges, and a relatively easy one to put it mildly.
Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
databases. Names of inventors are forgotten and or omitted all the
time. This is especially true for foreign names. Consider periodic
table of the chemical elements - it is being taught in American
schools, but the Russian name of its inventor is rarely mentioned.
Similarly, names of inventors on Normal Forms may be omitted of
forgotten, especially in other countries, and that is OK just as well.
DA Morgan
>> I would disagree with your characterization of them as "great DBAs."
>>
>
> That is a completely asinine comment. You don't know them; you don't
> know their background or their jobs, you don't know their training and
> you don't know the quality of work they do.
Actually I do know one thing ... that is with respect to their training.
You provided that answer yourself.
But my comment is hardly asinine. I just, it appears, have a higher
standard than you before I refer to someone as "great."
> Yet you say they are not great DBA's because they aren't familiar with
> Boyce's name? I've seen stupid and small minded in this group before,
> but that tops the cake.
Not because. But it is part of it: Yes.
Again ... my standard it, it would seem, rather higher than yours when
I throw around adjectives.
Since we are speaking English lets go with a dictionary definition:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great
"markedly superior in character or quality"
"remarkably skilled"
I guess I find them less remarkable than you do.
>> I know that might be your impression of them. And I've no doubt they
>> can install, patch, and backup and restore without crashing and burning.
>> But it takes more than that to be "great."
>
> And you have no idea what my background is. For your information, I've
> been programming for over 40 years. I've been working with RDB's for
> around 25 years - I started while working for IBM in the early 80's. And
> I've been teaching sql and database administration to Fortune 500
> companies for around 15 years.
We are not discussing you personally: Don't change the subject. Above
you wrote: "You don't know them" and now it is about you? Not interested
in pursuing that but I doubt you are older than me so be careful here.
> I know a great dba when I see one. And I know a small minded idiot when
> I see one. Your comments do NOT show you are a great DBA.
Never claimed to be one. Not once.
>> You don't know normalization if you don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
>> What you are describing is the competent self-taught ... not the
>> "great."
>
> Who said they don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form? They know how to
> normalize a database. They know the rules for each of the 5 normal
> forms. The fact YOU call it Boyce-Codd does not mean everyone does.
Actually it does.
http://www.datamodel.org/NormalizationRules.html
http://ycmi.med.yale.edu/nadkarni/db_course/Norm_contents.htm
http://comsci.liu.edu/~murali/syllabi/cs148_fall_2007.htm
At least within the community of those of us that teach it.
DA Morgan
>> You must be a very humble man Tony. You've so much to be humble about.
>
> Don't worry Denial Again; I hold you in the same albeit less extreme
> light as celko, i.e. somebody stuck in the classroom with little if any
> real industrial experience of SQL Server.
Stuck in the classroom no. I spend less than 5% of my time there.
Just built, and next week delivering to a NYSE traded public utility,
an F5 Load Balancer front-ending clustered application servers
front-ending a RAC database with dual NetApps. And all done without
a single PowerPoint slide: A real stretch!
But industrial experience with SQL Server? On that you are correct.
I am so ashamed. They'll probably make me turn in my Oracle Ace
shirt and start wearing one that says "SQL Server Joker."
DA Morgan
>>> Actually he isn't that well known, go to any conference and ask and folk will tell you who? <<
>
> Then why do I keep getting speaking invitations from database, data
> management, data warehousing, etc. conferences, decade after decade?
Ignore Tony ... we all do. He is just a frustrated troll
who, based on what I know of him from my contacts here in
Redmond, is remarkably unimpressive in the eyes of everyone
except himself.
The only way he has distinguished himself, so far, is by
using childhood taunts like substituting "Denial" for my
name. Truly the mark of maturity ... if you are in the
third grade.
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> I would disagree with your characterization of them as "great DBAs."
>>>
>>
>> That is a completely asinine comment. You don't know them; you don't
>> know their background or their jobs, you don't know their training and
>> you don't know the quality of work they do.
>
> Actually I do know one thing ... that is with respect to their training.
> You provided that answer yourself.
>
And you proved just how small minded you are.
> But my comment is hardly asinine. I just, it appears, have a higher
> standard than you before I refer to someone as "great."
>
Again, you have no idea how good these people are, nor what my standards
are - other than whether or not they've heard of Boyce.
Small minded people have small minded requirements. And your mind is
miniscule.
>> Yet you say they are not great DBA's because they aren't familiar with
>> Boyce's name? I've seen stupid and small minded in this group before,
>> but that tops the cake.
>
> Not because. But it is part of it: Yes.
>
> Again ... my standard it, it would seem, rather higher than yours when
> I throw around adjectives.
>
Not at all. Yours is based only on whether or not someone has heard of
Boyce. How trite.
> Since we are speaking English lets go with a dictionary definition:
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/great
>
> "markedly superior in character or quality"
> "remarkably skilled"
>
Yep. And you don't have to know of Boyce to be either. But you seem to
think so. Says enough about you.
> I guess I find them less remarkable than you do.
>
I find it remarkable that ANYONE would define a great anything on
whether or not they have heard of one person. But there are a lot like
you around, unfortunately.
>>> I know that might be your impression of them. And I've no doubt they
>>> can install, patch, and backup and restore without crashing and burning.
>>> But it takes more than that to be "great."
>>
>> And you have no idea what my background is. For your information,
>> I've been programming for over 40 years. I've been working with RDB's
>> for around 25 years - I started while working for IBM in the early
>> 80's. And I've been teaching sql and database administration to
>> Fortune 500 companies for around 15 years.
>
> We are not discussing you personally: Don't change the subject. Above
> you wrote: "You don't know them" and now it is about you? Not interested
> in pursuing that but I doubt you are older than me so be careful here.
>
No, you brought it up. I'm not changing the subject. You just can't
justify your position. So you aren't going to pursue it.
As to whether or not I'm older than you - I don't care. But I'm sure I
have a hell of a lot more experience than you.
>> I know a great dba when I see one. And I know a small minded idiot
>> when I see one. Your comments do NOT show you are a great DBA.
>
> Never claimed to be one. Not once.
>
Obviously. Because you have no idea what a great DBA is.
>>> You don't know normalization if you don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form.
>>> What you are describing is the competent self-taught ... not the
>>> "great."
>>
>> Who said they don't know Boyce-Codd Normal Form? They know how to
>> normalize a database. They know the rules for each of the 5 normal
>> forms. The fact YOU call it Boyce-Codd does not mean everyone does.
>
> Actually it does.
> http://www.datamodel.org/NormalizationRules.html
> http://ycmi.med.yale.edu/nadkarni/db_course/Norm_contents.htm
> http://comsci.liu.edu/~murali/syllabi/cs148_fall_2007.htm
>
> At least within the community of those of us that teach it.
Not at all. You can quote all the websites you want. I can show you
just as many websites which do not mention either Boyce or Codd.
As a matter of fact, my courses don't mention them, either. Not because
they aren't historically important, but because I have a limited amount
of time to teach DBA. Our courses are very intensive, and do not allow
time for historical perspective. We concentrate on the job.
Jerry Stuckle
Maybe in your experience. I make a very good living teaching Fortune
500 employees in a formal environment.
> Returning to normalization, it is not a very complex theory. When I
> was getting my education, it did not exist yet, but if it did, it
> would be taught in my first year, and it would be an easy course. In a
> top notch university you have to learn a lot of more advanced math to
> get your Master's degree. More to the point, for me as a development
> lead, as well as for many DBAs, normalization is just one of many
> challenges, and a relatively easy one to put it mildly.
>
Unless you got your degree in the early 70's (like I did), it did exist.
But Universities are notorious in not teaching the latest theory, either.
And I do agree, normalization itself is quite easy. But typically, the
more normalized the database, the poorer the performance. It takes a
great DBA with an understanding of the programming requirements (among
other things) to be able to balance the two successfully.
> Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
> databases. Names of inventors are forgotten and or omitted all the
> time. This is especially true for foreign names. Consider periodic
> table of the chemical elements - it is being taught in American
> schools, but the Russian name of its inventor is rarely mentioned.
> Similarly, names of inventors on Normal Forms may be omitted of
> forgotten, especially in other countries, and that is OK just as well.
>
>
Agreed. Neither my high school nor my college chemistry classes ever
mentioned Mendeleev. It wasn't until I became more interested in
history that I learned about him.
Jerry Stuckle
Sounds pretty intelligent to me. He's got you nailed.
Michael Austin
Sorry to disappoint you, this was an example not actual - even a close
proximity would be a trade secret.
> To do this successfully, you need to be a great DBA - and these are.
> They have to be to be in the business and companies (mostly Fortune 500)
> they are in. And they have to be able to design databases well - and
> they need to know when to break the normalization rules for performance
> reasons.
>
> But these people don't ask questions. The know the answers already.
> And, if they don't, no one does.
>
> To be a fair DBA you don't need to know everything. But to be a great
> DBA, you've GOT to understand the design, coding and administration of
> databases. Someone may know one part really well. But that doesn't
> make him a great DBA.
>
>
>> The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
>> "certified".
>>
>
> None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
> knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing it
> long before certifications were around.
You- and the "great DBA's", my friend, have been fortunate. Recently
(last 5-7 years) there are a lot of folks like me who couldn't get a job
even as a "contractor" if they tried because we were not "certified".
10-15years experience - yes. Multi-platform, multi-db-engine - yes.
Fixed major performance problems on business or mission critical
databases for many name-brand F500 companies - yes. But again - more
recently - because we did not have that certificate - were passed over
or not even considered usually because the certified "DBA" was fresh out
of school (term used very loosely) with "certified" behind his/her name
and hourly rates at or near the poverty level.
I have had head-hunters hang up on me when they ask about certification.
At this point there is no way to talk to the hiring manager. No way to
state your case or demonstrate your abilities. But, such is the IT
hiring business of today.
Back to our discussion of what it takes to be a great DBA.
Granted, you should be able to do all of the things you stated, but the
sad reality in business is that *usually* the people who initially
designed that very fast, properly normalized (the balance of when to
normalize/de-normalize you indicated), properly sized, properly
distributed (physical storage DOES matter) database are not the ones
having to maintain it due separation of duties being spouted about by
Sarb-Ox auditors everywhere.
I would consider a great DBA to be one that can walk into any shop and
take whatever is thrown at them including make current db perform better
- keeping in mind that NO amount of physical, memory, sql, index tuning
will EVER completely overcome a poor logical design. And the latter is
usually connected to some COTS package and there is no way to change it
on the production application without $MM in cost over-runs. It can be
mitigated, but only to a point. Sometimes starting from scratch is the
only way to achieve the required performance.
Jerry Stuckle
These DBA's work in an entirely different environment. Their managers
understand the real meat is in ability to do the job and not just hold a
piece of paper.
Companies who only care about a certification have no idea what they
really need. Rather than getting someone to help them hire the correct
person, they just say you need a certification. Personally, I wouldn't
work for such a company.
> I have had head-hunters hang up on me when they ask about certification.
> At this point there is no way to talk to the hiring manager. No way to
> state your case or demonstrate your abilities. But, such is the IT
> hiring business of today.
>
That's what happens when you use head hunters who have no idea what
they're doing (which is most of them). Same with hiring managers. You
need to find the person who makes the decisions and talk to him/her
directly.
> Back to our discussion of what it takes to be a great DBA.
>
> Granted, you should be able to do all of the things you stated, but the
> sad reality in business is that *usually* the people who initially
> designed that very fast, properly normalized (the balance of when to
> normalize/de-normalize you indicated), properly sized, properly
> distributed (physical storage DOES matter) database are not the ones
> having to maintain it due separation of duties being spouted about by
> Sarb-Ox auditors everywhere.
>
No, people move on. But the people who replace them are just as
qualified and knowledgeable. Big companies can't afford anyone less.
Picture a major airline who couldn't access their reservations system
quickly, a shipping company who can't track packages reliably, or an
automobile manufacturer who can't manage their parts inventory, all
because performance is so bad.
Neither is good for long term viability of the company.
> I would consider a great DBA to be one that can walk into any shop and
> take whatever is thrown at them including make current db perform better
> - keeping in mind that NO amount of physical, memory, sql, index tuning
> will EVER completely overcome a poor logical design. And the latter is
> usually connected to some COTS package and there is no way to change it
> on the production application without $MM in cost over-runs. It can be
> mitigated, but only to a point. Sometimes starting from scratch is the
> only way to achieve the required performance.
>
>
Agreed, but if the job was done properly in the first place, that isn't
as much of a problem. From what I've seen as a bigger problem over the
years is the changing needs for the database. Different information
required, different reporting, etc. Eventually, the creep becomes so
severe that the current database has little or no resemblance to the one
designed 20 years ago. But there are millions of lines of COBOL (or
whatever) code accessing it.
You're correct - it costs a fortune to make the changes. But eventually
they often need to do a complete rewrite. And that keeps programmers busy.
Mxyplx
Objectively, I know that. But sometimes he just gets on my nerves. I
can get a twit filter to clean him out of the in-box and I really
should.
DA Morgan
> Strange. In our trade most great people are largely self taught in the
> areas they are great in - the industry is new, and people are coming
> up with innovations all the time.
Innovations all the time ... yes. Innovations all the time in medicine
too.
But "new"? I would disagree.
Alan Turing, widely considered the father of computer science, died in
1954. In 1969 I was writing Fortran on IBM mainframes and we aren't
talking bread-boards by any stretch of the imagination.
So unless you are well into your 70s or above computers have been
widely available (not PCs I'll grant) your entire lifetime.
> Linus Torvalds came up with lots of really cool stuff when he wasn't
> even a Master. Sergey Brin and Larry Page do have PhDs, and they came
> up themselves with what makes them great.
Not to take anything away from Linus as I am a proud user of Linux
but I think you exaggerate just a bit. By that standard we would have
to credit Bill Gates for his great work with Basic. And the google
crowd ... I don't want to start an off-topic flame war here but like
Gates I am more impressed with their ability to market than code.
> Returning to normalization, it is not a very complex theory. When I
> was getting my education, it did not exist yet, but if it did, it
> would be taught in my first year, and it would be an easy course. In a
> top notch university you have to learn a lot of more advanced math to
> get your Master's degree. More to the point, for me as a development
> lead, as well as for many DBAs, normalization is just one of many
> challenges, and a relatively easy one to put it mildly.
>
> Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
> databases. Names of inventors are forgotten and or omitted all the
> time. This is especially true for foreign names. Consider periodic
> table of the chemical elements - it is being taught in American
> schools, but the Russian name of its inventor is rarely mentioned.
> Similarly, names of inventors on Normal Forms may be omitted of
> forgotten, especially in other countries, and that is OK just as well.
Teaching at university I hear this argument all the time ... from
those who haven't a degree. I'll grant you don't seem to be part of
that crowd ... but I'll still respectfully disagree.
I've no doubt someone could, in theory, be a physics genius without
knowing the names Newton and Einstein. But I suspect you will agree
that the chances are about the same as winning the lottery.
I am not impressed by arguments that go "well it is true for everyone
else but it doesn't relate to us."
DA Morgan
I have him in my spam filter so I never see anything of his unless I
go looking for it. But when others respond to him his puffery shows up
and then, alas, I sometimes give into temptation and look up the
flatulence d'jour.
Jerry Stuckle
Yes, universities always were good at teaching irrelevant information
and then testing on it.
Try doing like I do - teach C, C++, Java, etc. in one week. That's 5
straight days, 7.5 - 8.0 hours per day, no homework. And at the end
have students who can write code.
> I've no doubt someone could, in theory, be a physics genius without
> knowing the names Newton and Einstein. But I suspect you will agree
> that the chances are about the same as winning the lottery.
>
Of course. Knowing who Einstein or Newton were has nothing to do with
learning physics.
> I am not impressed by arguments that go "well it is true for everyone
> else but it doesn't relate to us."
I'm not at all impressed by your arguments.
Tony Rogerson
>> management, data warehousing, etc. conferences, decade after decade?
>> Somebody must have heard of me! Or else I am working too cheap
Really - name 5 conferences in the past 12 months you've presented at - and
I don't mean user group meetings - I mean proper conferences; also - not
just ones you've attended! Also, in the SQL Server community you've probably
done 1 in 2 years if my memory recalls - face it; nobody will have you
because of your attitude and because you are so out of date and out of
touch.
>> And why I am earning hundreds of dollars in and revenue for a blog
>> site that does nothing but post my newsgroup replies? That is really
>> working too cheap!
http://counter4.bravenet.com/index.php?id=395552&usernum=264967159
In nearly 2 years you've had only 15,536 visitors; I get more than half that
amount in just a month
(http://www.3dstats.com/cgi-bin/showuni1.cgi?usr=00001948&dd=10&mm=11&yy=2008&period=4)
And if you think the person running the site has earned hundreds of dollars
out of you then youre a bigger fool with even less grasp for business than I
took you for - I use adwords myself and on that many visitors he's probably
earned $50 in 2 years.
And as for the rest, we've all popularised them for you to say you've done
it all yourself is very arrogant but we all know you are very arrogant,
ignorant, etc....
jhof...@googlemail.com
hero's" are attacking the "classroom fossils" who comprise the
academic branch of our diverse industry...
It always astounds me that the two "factions" fail to recognise that
they are co-dependent. The academic side teaches the theory (which
may not be practical) which shapes the way students approach real
problems, the practical side provide the implementation and innovation
that drives the industry forward.
The fact that these "innovations" are predominantly based on theories
and thought processes they learned in the classroom (or read in books/
blogs/<insert academic reference here>) seems to have been forgotten
or is glossed over ... but innovation becomes classroom material, and
the next generation's thoughts are shaped and ready to face new real
problems.
This is the nature of evolution and progress - grow up and live with
it!
DA Morgan
>> Teaching at university I hear this argument all the time ... from
>> those who haven't a degree. I'll grant you don't seem to be part of
>> that crowd ... but I'll still respectfully disagree.
>
> Yes, universities always were good at teaching irrelevant information
> and then testing on it.
You have never taken my class and I do appreciate the quick way in
which you have gone from name calling ... Morgan is narrow/small
minded ... to commenting on that of which you have zero knowledge.
Well done.
> Try doing like I do - teach C, C++, Java, etc. in one week. That's 5
> straight days, 7.5 - 8.0 hours per day, no homework. And at the end
> have students who can write code.
Hello World.
>> I've no doubt someone could, in theory, be a physics genius without
>> knowing the names Newton and Einstein. But I suspect you will agree
>> that the chances are about the same as winning the lottery.
>
> Of course. Knowing who Einstein or Newton were has nothing to do with
> learning physics.
That is utter and complete nonsense and you won't find a physics prof.
on the planet who would agree with you.
>> I am not impressed by arguments that go "well it is true for everyone
>> else but it doesn't relate to us."
>
> I'm not at all impressed by your arguments.
If you think I am trying to impress you, or even writing this in
the hope of changing your mind you are engaged in a serious
misunderstanding of my posts.
DA Morgan
>>> Then why do I keep getting speaking invitations from database, data
>>> management, data warehousing, etc. conferences, decade after decade?
>
> Really - name 5 conferences in the past 12 months you've presented at -
> and I don't mean user group meetings - I mean proper conferences; also -
> not just ones you've attended!
Fair question Tony. And, in return, why don't you list all of
your conference presentations, books and journal articles published,
and credentials such as sitting on the ANSI committee.
gazzag
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the most sensible post in the whole
thread, I suggest we end it there :-)
-g
Tony Rogerson
> your conference presentations, books and journal articles published,
> and credentials such as sitting on the ANSI committee.
Here's me thinking I was on your "spam filter" Denial Again.
My question was to celko - are you his bitch or something? Let him defend
himself.
And as for me - I'm well know in the UK in my product specialism and that's
enough for me thank you very much.
Also, it would appear celko was the only person on the standards committee -
I find it very odd that nobody else makes even a simple claim let alone
constantly mentioning it like celko does. And, why, with such a cushy number
isn't he still on it? SQL 2003 etc...??
--CELKO--
LOL! You really don't have any idea how few speakers do more than
three conferences per year, do you? I only attend out-of-town or out-
of-country conferences where I am speaking, got a free ticket or have
a consulting gig.
>> Also, in the SQL Server community you've probably done 1 in 2 years if my memory recalls <<
I missed PASS this last year, but I have *already* done two "SQL
Saturday!" shows in Florida and I am hoping for a third. I believe, if
you follow true to form, you will now poo-poo the whole Code Camp and
"SQL Saturday!" efforts; that will not make you friends in the SQL
Server community.
My overseas speaking trips will be to London and Munich later this
year. I am also getting something ready for Las Vegas.
>> In nearly 2 years you've had only 15,536 visitors; I get more than half that amount in just a month <<
Tony, I have had NO visitors at all! This is not my blog. I have
tried to get it taken down, but without any luck. All Google will do
is post a note that "This blog is not Joe Celko's but it is a
collection of his answers in public newsgroups" for me. I have a
stalker, not a blog. And now I just given him a plug! Arrgh!
>> And as for the rest, we've all popularised them for you to say you've done it all yourself is very arrogant but we all know you are very arrogant, ignorant, etc. <<
For me? Thank you! :) I never said I "did it all myself"; you did.
First you ask me to name techniques I popularized; I do so, cutting
the list off at 20; I have publication credits to them. Then in
typical Newsgroup Troll fashion, you berate me for an answer to you
own question. But let's play your idea. What would be an objective
measurement of "popularization" of X by Y? Let's pick an SQL
technique that has a name and do a social network search on the
Internet. TECHNOLOGY REVIEW this issue has some articles on such
tools and I did a little project for a company that sells such a
tool. It is fun to play with these things and see how an idea
spreads .. but I digress.
I think I would score high on "Nested Sets", "Celko's Relational
Division" and pretty good on many others. Ben Gan and Moreau would
score high on "Path Enumeration" or " Materialized Path" in the same
way. Ralph Kimball and Bill Inmon would have spread the word about
Data Warehousing almost alone. What do you think your scores would be
on anything in the database world?
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>>> Teaching at university I hear this argument all the time ... from
>>> those who haven't a degree. I'll grant you don't seem to be part of
>>> that crowd ... but I'll still respectfully disagree.
>>
>> Yes, universities always were good at teaching irrelevant information
>> and then testing on it.
>
> You have never taken my class and I do appreciate the quick way in
> which you have gone from name calling ... Morgan is narrow/small
> minded ... to commenting on that of which you have zero knowledge.
>
Believe me, I don't need to take your class. I've taken many university
classes, and they're all more less the same. Lots of good theory, but
also lots of unnecessary garbage.
So you tell me - what does recognizing the name Boyce have to do with
being an good DBA?
> Well done.
>
Yes, your words have spoken for themselves.
>> Try doing like I do - teach C, C++, Java, etc. in one week. That's 5
>> straight days, 7.5 - 8.0 hours per day, no homework. And at the end
>> have students who can write code.
>
> Hello World.
>
Wrong answer. Productive members of a team. Not experts - but then
graduates of a 1 semester class aren't experts, either. That comes with
time. But they can do more than your 1 semester classes can do.
>>> I've no doubt someone could, in theory, be a physics genius without
>>> knowing the names Newton and Einstein. But I suspect you will agree
>>> that the chances are about the same as winning the lottery.
>>
>> Of course. Knowing who Einstein or Newton were has nothing to do with
>> learning physics.
>
> That is utter and complete nonsense and you won't find a physics prof.
> on the planet who would agree with you.
>
Nope. No PROFESSOR will agree. But physicists will. That's the
difference between those who teach and those who do.
>>> I am not impressed by arguments that go "well it is true for everyone
>>> else but it doesn't relate to us."
>>
>> I'm not at all impressed by your arguments.
>
I'm not at all impressed by any of your arguments.
> If you think I am trying to impress you, or even writing this in
> the hope of changing your mind you are engaged in a serious
> misunderstanding of my posts.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn. You go ahead and teach. Let those
who know, do it.
Tony Rogerson
> three conferences per year, do you? I only attend out-of-town or out-
> of-country conferences where I am speaking, got a free ticket or have
> a consulting gig.
Name 3 in the last 12 months then, if you are so popular... there must be
cracking on for 40 conferences in the various vendors/ db industry every 12
months.
> I missed PASS this last year, but I have *already* done two "SQL
> Saturday!" shows in Florida and I am hoping for a third. I believe, if
User Group events....
Orlando SQL User Group
Tampa SQL User Group
Jacksonville SQL User Group
These are all really great user groups and we in the UK follow the free
Saturday conference model with our own SQLBits brand - we completed our 2nd
conference on Sat 1st March with 350 attendees.
They are also all FREE.
> you follow true to form, you will now poo-poo the whole Code Camp and
> "SQL Saturday!" efforts; that will not make you friends in the SQL
> Server community.
>
I poo-poo your attitude and the rubbish you post 'period'.
> My overseas speaking trips will be to London and Munich later this
> year. I am also getting something ready for Las Vegas.
I'll be sure to watch out - but it's probably more rubbish to try and build
you in tatters profile up.
> Tony, I have had NO visitors at all! This is not my blog. I have
> tried to get it taken down, but without any luck. All Google will do
> is post a note that "This blog is not Joe Celko's but it is a
> collection of his answers in public newsgroups" for me. I have a
> stalker, not a blog. And now I just given him a plug! Arrgh!
15,536 visitors in two years, 6 unique visitors in the last 7 days.
That is the measure of your popularity celko - that is the measure!
> Data Warehousing almost alone. What do you think your scores would be
> on anything in the database world?
My blog statistics speak for themselves - rather more than 6 visitors in the
last 7 days - what you get in a week I get in an hour and if you care to
check it's a good mixture between new and repeat visitors.
jgar the jorrible
> DA Morgan wrote:
> > Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
> >>> "certified".
>
> >> None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
> >> knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing
>
> > We've a mixed crowd on this thread ... MySQL, Oracle, and SQL Server
> > so we need to be careful about what we claim and how it will be
> > interpreted by different audiences.
>
> > MySQL certification?
>
> ANY certification. These guys (and gals) have been DBA's much longer
> than MySQL - or even SQL Server - has been around, much less
> certifications for them. Not sure when Oracle started up.
>
Well, maybe people in the IBM mainframe world of the '80s didn't want
to talk to you about how stupid IBM was for not aggresively following
up on their own theorists and let Oracle put out a product first.
You might learn some history, man. "Yes, actually Oracle had an
earlier SQL product than IBM. IBM invented the language, but Oracle
shipped it first." http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/SQL_Reunion_95/sqlr95-Oracle.html
Personally, I started working with a relational db in a business
environment in early 1981, but it wasn't SQL.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.baselinemag.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=4536&pop=1&hide_ads=1&page=0&hide_js=1
--CELKO--
But who does the hiring? Catbert, the evil director of Human
Resources! And all Catbert knows to look for is that Certification.
Sad, but true. This is one of the reasons we set up Neumont
University's model to include Certification, college degree and a
portfolio of actual work.
Jerry Stuckle
> On Mar 8, 8:02 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> DA Morgan wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> The other really sad part is that they were hired because they were
>>>>> "certified".
>>>> None of these are "certified", AFAIK. They were hired for their
>>>> knowledge, not because of a piece of paper. But then they were doing
>>>> it long before certifications were around.
>>> We've a mixed crowd on this thread ... MySQL, Oracle, and SQL Server
>>> so we need to be careful about what we claim and how it will be
>>> interpreted by different audiences.
>>> MySQL certification?
>> ANY certification. These guys (and gals) have been DBA's much longer
>> than MySQL - or even SQL Server - has been around, much less
>> certifications for them. Not sure when Oracle started up.
>>
>
> Well, maybe people in the IBM mainframe world of the '80s didn't want
> to talk to you about how stupid IBM was for not aggresively following
> up on their own theorists and let Oracle put out a product first.
>
Sorry, incorrect.
> You might learn some history, man. "Yes, actually Oracle had an
> earlier SQL product than IBM. IBM invented the language, but Oracle
> shipped it first." http://www.mcjones.org/System_R/SQL_Reunion_95/sqlr95-Oracle.html
>
Sorry, try again. IBM had a relational database as a commercial product
in the late 70's. I don't remember what it was called at the time - but
it implemented the SQL language at the time. This later evolved into DB2.
And don't believe everything you read on the internet.
> Personally, I started working with a relational db in a business
> environment in early 1981, but it wasn't SQL.
>
> jg
> --
> @home.com is bogus.
> http://www.baselinemag.com/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=4536&pop=1&hide_ads=1&page=0&hide_js=1
>
I wasn't working on relational databases at the time, but I was working
for IBM and familiar with many of their products.
Jerry Stuckle
Not necessarily. You get to the right person with the right
qualifications, and you can basically bypass HR's system completely.
They will tell HR whom to hire.
It's all in knowing how to work the system - and obviously you don't.
Alex Kuznetsov
> Alex Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Strange. In our trade most great people are largely self taught in the
> > areas they are great in - the industry is new, and people are coming
> > up with innovations all the time.
>
> Innovations all the time ... yes. Innovations all the time in medicine
> too.
>
> But "new"? I would disagree.
>
As compared to law, medicine, and engineering, which have been around
for generations, IT is still very new.
Suppose a professor is ten years behind the practice. In law ten years
is just a tiny fraction. But being ten years behind in IT is huge.
> > Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
> > databases. Names of inventors are forgotten and or omitted all the
> > time. This is especially true for foreign names. Consider periodic
> > table of the chemical elements - it is being taught in American
> > schools, but the Russian name of its inventor is rarely mentioned.
> > Similarly, names of inventors on Normal Forms may be omitted of
> > forgotten, especially in other countries, and that is OK just as well.
>
> Teaching at university I hear this argument all the time ... from
> those who haven't a degree. I'll grant you don't seem to be part of
> that crowd ... but I'll still respectfully disagree.
>
As for me, I hear this argument all the time from PhDs who got their
degrees and left academia to work in the industry.
Clearly one and the same standard should be applied to prominent
scientists regardless of their origin.
> I've no doubt someone could, in theory, be a physics genius without
> knowing the names Newton and Einstein.
With all due respect to inventors of normal forms, I think that
Newton, Mendeleev and Einstein contributed significantly more, so the
comparison is incorrect.
DA Morgan
> Once again we have a thread in this group where practical "working
> hero's" are attacking the "classroom fossils" who comprise the
> academic branch of our diverse industry...
>
> It always astounds me that the two "factions" fail to recognise that
> they are co-dependent. The academic side teaches the theory (which
> may not be practical) which shapes the way students approach real
> problems, the practical side provide the implementation and innovation
> that drives the industry forward.
Actually it is far worse than you imagine. There are three Oracle
instructors at the University of Washington. I have been the primary
instructor for 8 years, personally wrote the curriculum, and it is
95+% practical. The other two instructors are Robert Perry, a
production DBA at Boeing, who has worked with Oracle since version
4 and Jeremiah Wilton, a member of the Oak Table (www.oaktable.org),
and one of the people to whom Amazon.com owes its success.
Theory has its place in computer science classes. In Oracle classes
at the University of Washington it is all about hands-on experience
and midterms and finals deal with real-world issues experienced in
the aerospace and communications industries ... not a single test ever
given was True/False, Multiple Choice, or Essay. All exam answers
always involve writing working code.
I am sure those throwing around their criticisms of academia have
years of experience on their resumes. I'd also be willing to bet that
a quarter or more of our students could code circles around them.
Jerry Stuckle
I'll take your bet any time. I have yet to find any student who can do
as well as an experienced programmer.
And anyone who thinks they can has no idea what the real world is like.
Tell me - have you ever worked on a 2-3 year project with 75 other
programmers, creating a large real-world application?
Have you ever worked on maintaining and upgrading a 1M LOC+ program?
Or have you ever even taken a 50K LOC project for someone you don't
know, and taken it from requirements gathering to final delivery?
Have you ever worked on a project where the requirements change weekly,
if not daily?
DA Morgan
> Believe me, I don't need to take your class. I've taken many university
> classes, and they're all more less the same. Lots of good theory, but
> also lots of unnecessary garbage.
Go to www.sqluniversity.net.
Click on Sample Courses
Take one (they are free)
When you find the "lots of good theory" part point it out to me and I
will remove it.
Ignorance is such a precious thing ... you really shouldn't wave
it around in public.
DA Morgan
> On Mar 9, 10:58 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote:
>> Alex Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> Strange. In our trade most great people are largely self taught in the
>>> areas they are great in - the industry is new, and people are coming
>>> up with innovations all the time.
>> Innovations all the time ... yes. Innovations all the time in medicine
>> too.
>>
>> But "new"? I would disagree.
>>
>
> As compared to law, medicine, and engineering, which have been around
> for generations, IT is still very new.
Yes. But compared to the lifetimes of the humans spouting off here it
has been around longer than more than half of them.
Would you tell your physician penicillin is new? It has been
commercially available about the same amount of time as mainframes.
Penicillin first successful treatment: March 14, 1942.
IBM 650 first mass produced mainframe: Shipped 1954.
> Suppose a professor is ten years behind the practice. In law ten years
> is just a tiny fraction. But being ten years behind in IT is huge.
No one was discussing professors we were discussing IT and medicine and
law and engineering. So lets not change the subject and pursue it.
How long can a surgeon in the US retain his license to practice medicine
without continuing education? Two years max. A CPA one year if he or she
plans to file tax returns for customers. Attorneys and Engineers about
the same amount of time. If they don't maintain their education level
they lose their malpractice insurance, they lose their license to
practice, they lose their ability to work.
Want to guess what percentage of Oracle DBAs have never taken a single
class in their lives? Or how many are running 9i and above while
certified on 8i or below? We don't come even remotely close to the
quality control levels required of other professionals.
>>> Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
>>> databases.
Sorry but that's nonsense. If you think you can find a person that can
competently tune an Oracle database and doesn't know who Cary Millsap
or Jonathan Lewis is you are kidding yourself. If you think you can
find a competent Oracle developer that doesn't know who Tom Kyte is
you need to lay off the stuff. You can't segment knowledge the way you
are trying.
Next are you going to tell me is that you can understand Newtonian
mechanics without knowing who Isaac Newton was.
DA Morgan
> Have you ever worked on maintaining and upgrading a 1M LOC+ program?
Few that small actually. You might want to read my CV before you
stick the other foot in it.
Or perhaps you'd like to come to Redwood Shores in April and meet me
here: http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php.
Some people here might remember me from OOW 2005 where my team built
a 24 node RAC cluster in Moscone West in two days. That gig came after
building two 10 node clusters for one of the largest commercial banks
in Japan to run SAP. I'll let you guess at the dollar figure.
> Or have you ever even taken a 50K LOC project for someone you don't
> know, and taken it from requirements gathering to final delivery?
Delivering one on the 17th of this month here: http://www.mdu.com.
> Have you ever worked on a project where the requirements change weekly,
> if not daily?
You are either very young, very inexperienced, or both. You may be
quite sure I don't care which but I'll put my money on both. I suspect
I was coding in Fortran before you spoke your first word.
Speaking for myself I've had enough of this schoolyard nonsense. Killfile.
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Have you ever worked on maintaining and upgrading a 1M LOC+ program?
>
> Few that small actually. You might want to read my CV before you
> stick the other foot in it.
>
So far, I am totally unimpressed.
> Or perhaps you'd like to come to Redwood Shores in April and meet me
> here: http://zseriesoraclesig.org/index.php.
>
> Some people here might remember me from OOW 2005 where my team built
> a 24 node RAC cluster in Moscone West in two days. That gig came after
> building two 10 node clusters for one of the largest commercial banks
> in Japan to run SAP. I'll let you guess at the dollar figure.
>
That's not 1 1M LOC+ program. That's just putting together a bunch of
tools on some systems. Tool jockeys are not at all in the same league
as programmers.
>> Or have you ever even taken a 50K LOC project for someone you don't
>> know, and taken it from requirements gathering to final delivery?
>
> Delivering one on the 17th of this month here: http://www.mdu.com.
>
A website! ROFLMAO! Try a real application. But you probably don't
know what one is.
>> Have you ever worked on a project where the requirements change
>> weekly, if not daily?
>
> You are either very young, very inexperienced, or both. You may be
> quite sure I don't care which but I'll put my money on both. I suspect
> I was coding in Fortran before you spoke your first word.
>
> Speaking for myself I've had enough of this schoolyard nonsense. Killfile.
Over 40 years of programming experience, and 18 years as an independent
consultant. My first programming was Fortran II on an IBM 1401 back in
1967.
But I've been working in the real world, not some ivory tower.
You're just like many other academicians I've met. You think you know
everything. But you really know nothing.
Jerry Stuckle
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Believe me, I don't need to take your class. I've taken many
>> university classes, and they're all more less the same. Lots of good
>> theory, but also lots of unnecessary garbage.
>
> Go to www.sqluniversity.net.
> Click on Sample Courses
> Take one (they are free)
> When you find the "lots of good theory" part point it out to me and I
> will remove it.
>
> Ignorance is such a precious thing ... you really shouldn't wave
> it around in public.
Sqluniversity is not a University. That is not a university class. But
you wouldn't know the difference.
Jerry Stuckle
> Alex Kuznetsov wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 10:58 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote:
>>> Alex Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>> Strange. In our trade most great people are largely self taught in the
>>>> areas they are great in - the industry is new, and people are coming
>>>> up with innovations all the time.
>>> Innovations all the time ... yes. Innovations all the time in medicine
>>> too.
>>>
>>> But "new"? I would disagree.
>>>
>>
>> As compared to law, medicine, and engineering, which have been around
>> for generations, IT is still very new.
>
> Yes. But compared to the lifetimes of the humans spouting off here it
> has been around longer than more than half of them.
>
So, what does that have to do with the fact you are out of touch with
reality?
> Would you tell your physician penicillin is new? It has been
> commercially available about the same amount of time as mainframes.
>
> Penicillin first successful treatment: March 14, 1942.
> IBM 650 first mass produced mainframe: Shipped 1954.
>
So? What does that have to do with the fact you are out of touch with
reality?
>> Suppose a professor is ten years behind the practice. In law ten years
>> is just a tiny fraction. But being ten years behind in IT is huge.
>
> No one was discussing professors we were discussing IT and medicine and
> law and engineering. So lets not change the subject and pursue it.
>
No, we were discussing professors and their lack of touch with reality.
So lets not change the subject.
> How long can a surgeon in the US retain his license to practice medicine
> without continuing education? Two years max. A CPA one year if he or she
> plans to file tax returns for customers. Attorneys and Engineers about
> the same amount of time. If they don't maintain their education level
> they lose their malpractice insurance, they lose their license to
> practice, they lose their ability to work.
>
Fortunately, a lot less time than an incompetent professor can keep his
tenure.
> Want to guess what percentage of Oracle DBAs have never taken a single
> class in their lives? Or how many are running 9i and above while
> certified on 8i or below? We don't come even remotely close to the
> quality control levels required of other professionals.
>
Who cares? If they can do their job, what's the difference if they took
a class or are self taught? I know a lot of DBA's who know a hell of a
lot more than what they might learn in one of your "classes".
>>>> Memorizing last names has nothing to do with the ability to administer
>>>> databases.
>
> Sorry but that's nonsense. If you think you can find a person that can
> competently tune an Oracle database and doesn't know who Cary Millsap
> or Jonathan Lewis is you are kidding yourself. If you think you can
> find a competent Oracle developer that doesn't know who Tom Kyte is
> you need to lay off the stuff. You can't segment knowledge the way you
> are trying.
>
Only you thin that knowing someone's name makes you a better DBA.
Clueless idiot.
> Next are you going to tell me is that you can understand Newtonian
> mechanics without knowing who Isaac Newton was.
Yes, one can. You can even call it fizzbin mechanics. The name does
not affect the math.
--CELKO--
LOL! You really have not seen Dan's Oracle classes! They hand you an
empty server and you start by loading and configuring it from
scratch. I am not kidding. Forget about an already installed DB
waiting for you; Dan starts at the hardware.
>> Only you think that knowing someone's name makes you a better DBA. Clueless idiot. <<
My, what a carefully reasoned argument :) Knowing the history and
important concepts of your trade area measure of professionalism. It
also means you know how to communicate with others and research inside
your trade. You have a context for your tools.
>> [you can understand Newtonian mechanics without knowing who Isaac Newton was] You can even call it fizzbin mechanics. The name does not affect the math. <<
LOL! Do ever watch Futurama? You're Dr. Zoidberg! He is a lobster
alien who has no idea about human anatomy and makes up his own words.
Or maybe you're the seagull in THE LITTLE MERMAID, who calls a fork a
"dinglehopper" and, having no context for it, assumes it is used like
a comb.
Why not carry this line of non-reason further? Having clear, industry
standard data element names, interfaces and protocols does not effect
the compilation or execution of a program. In fact, back in the old
FORTRAN days of my youth, we had a slogan that "If it was hard to
write, then it should be hard to read!" and we meant it. Therefore,
learning anything but how to write code for a particular release of a
particular complier for a particular language makes you a clueless
idiot.
--CELKO--
That is not true in the United State. Lawyers have to obtain a
certain number of CEU credits per year to get their bar card. They
can take a course or teach one; I have a friend who does bankruptcy
courses for UCLA after she got out of IT. It is a major part of their
careers.
Ten years in law is huge -- the tax code alone changes constantly!
Have you ever been to the Computer Law Institute in Los Angeles and
seen what is happening in IP? The topics of importance change from
year to year.
However, I frequently run into people in IT who have not taken a
course or learned a new technology in 5 to 10 years. They know Java,
HTML, Crystal Reports, etc. and earn a living with it doing websites
or writing code at a company. The last educational thing they did was
cram for a certification. They do not read trade publications and
only look at the gaming parts of SlashDot.
Sad but true.
Jerry Stuckle
Another troll heard from. I used to have a decent amount of respect for
you. But now that I have seen your posts - NOT!
Jerry Stuckle
>>> we were discussing professors and their lack of touch with reality. <<
>
> LOL! You really have not seen Dan's Oracle classes! They hand you an
> empty server and you start by loading and configuring it from
> scratch. I am not kidding. Forget about an already installed DB
> waiting for you; Dan starts at the hardware.
>
Oh, and BTW - what a colossal waste of time. How often does one have to
install Oracle, anyway? If it's more than once per system, then you
need to go to a better product.
No wonder it takes him a week to teach a Hello World program.
--CELKO--
Thank you for a carefully reasoned argument and/or useful information.
>> I used to have a decent amount of respect for you. But now that I have seen your posts - NOT! <<
To be honest, I never heard of you before now.
Jerry Stuckle
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. I'm not the one strutting my fame.
gazzag
[snip]
> Oh, and BTW - what a colossal waste of time. How often does one have to
> install Oracle, anyway? If it's more than once per system, then you
> need to go to a better product.
>
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> ==================
Installing and configuring an Oracle installation is valuable
experience. I'd consider it a valid part of a decent course.
-g
joel garry
Well, I gotta say, the particular link I posted is a lot more
trustable than "I don't remember what it was called at the time - but
it implemented the SQL language at the time..." Go back to that link
and look at the quote attributed to Codd. And read the rest of doc
with those navigation arrows at the top and bottom, it might happen to
be about what you don't remember.
>I wasn't working on relational databases at the time, but I was working for IBM and familiar with many of their products.
So you were not in an ivory tower, you were in a manure silo. I guess
that makes you a hands-on expert.
Oh, and I watched part of Dan putting together that OOW demo - it
wasn't a "tool" it was a 24 node cluster. From scratch.
And I did know about Mendeleev from before they mentioned him in AP
high school chemistry.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
"Often a quick way to improve code is to remove the entire exception
section." - William Robertson
Jerry Stuckle
My customers would consider installation a complete waste of time. If
it's that hard to install, maybe people should use a different product.
DB2 comes to mind.
In the time his students take to install Oracle, our DB2 Admin students
have learned about the tuning parameters, explained SQL statements to
determine why things run slowly and tuned the system for better performance.
Much more useful use of time than sitting there watching a CD spin.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Tony Rogerson
> everything. But you really know nothing.
With regard celko and Denial Again - never a truer word spoken!
gazzag
> ==================
> Remove the "x" from my email address
> Jerry Stuckle
> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> jstuck...@attglobal.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some would, I'm sure. However, I'd consider it a useful exercise. I
trust, like any good organisation, the customer is always right? ;-)
-g
Jerry Stuckle
Ah, yes, it was known as System R, back in the early 70's. Long before
Oracle.
Jerry Stuckle
In the case of Fortune 500 companies paying up to $500 per student per
day, yes. They don't want their employees sitting there watching a CD
spin.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstu...@attglobal.net
==================
Tony Rogerson
> course or learned a new technology in 5 to 10 years. They know Java,
That will be you then.
The last thing YOU do is listen to product experts - just how many times now
is that you've been corrected and on how many different incorrect and
usually fundemental errors you've made in SQL Server forums?
Definitely sad - definitely true.
Erick T. Barkhuis
> gazzag wrote:
> > On 11 Mar, 18:14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> My customers would consider installation a complete waste of time.
> > [snip]
>
> day, yes. They don't want their employees sitting there watching a CD
> spin.
What type of trainer would that be, who lets the students sit and watch
the CD spin? I thought good trainers, worth 500 dollars per day per
student, would have someting useful prepared for those twenty minutes
where an installation process runs unattended.
I don't think students would consider their first Oracle installation a
waste of time, assuming that they _learn_ how to do it (and what to do if
a step or two fail) during that time frame.
--
Erick
Jerry Stuckle
We don't teach installation. They come preloaded with a default
configuration and databases. That way we can concentrate on a DBA's job.
As I said before - installation should only be required once per system,
and if Oracle is that hard to install (or requires multiple
installations to get it right), maybe another product should be used.
Alex Kuznetsov
> gazzag wrote:
> > On 11 Mar, 18:14, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> > [snip]
> >> My customers would consider installation a complete waste of time.
> > [snip]
> >> ==================
> >> Remove the "x" from my email address
> >> Jerry Stuckle
> >> JDS Computer Training Corp.
> >> jstuck...@attglobal.net
> >> ==================- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Some would, I'm sure. However, I'd consider it a useful exercise. I
> > trust, like any good organisation, the customer is always right? ;-)
>
> > -g
>
> In the case of Fortune 500 companies paying up to $500 per student per
> day, yes. They don't want their employees sitting there watching a CD
> spin.
I think usually installing Oracle is contractor's job, because it is
very complex and you don't do it often.
That's why many shops don't waste their resources training permanent
employees - bringing in contractors for a relatively short time is
much cheaper.
--CELKO--
I like DB2 better than Oracle myself, but a lot of that kind of thing
is done with the initial installation and configuration in Oracle. It
is not easy and you really need to learn to do an install.
Did you notice that one posting you criticize Dan for being too
academic and then for giving too much physical detail? Please be more
consistent in your attacks.
My previous full-time job was at a for-profit, start-up developer's
university. We tracked the premium at which our grads are hired.. All
schools track such things in the education and training business and
since you are in the business, I assume that you do the same.
Programmers who get thru Dan's courses are hired at a premium; what
premium do your students command?
--CELKO--
That is one of the reasons I am not a big Oracle fan; it is complex.
If your people don't learn configuration and tuning (at least at the
basic level), then you will always have contractors doing constant
minor tuning. And that they are willing to come immediately after
each and every little bump along the way, so you don't lose production
time.
Jerry Stuckle
Our customers are mainly Fortune 500 companies, paid for by the company.
Our students are employees of them. We do not request payroll
information; that is between the employee and his/her employer.