Re: Are Oracle DBAs trivialized?

On 11 Apr 2005 17:20:17 GMT, xhoster_at_gmail.com wrote:

>domenicg_at_hotmail.com (Domenic) wrote:
>> I'd like everyone's thoughts on this ...
>>
>> More and more I am finding that the role of the Oracle DBA is not
>> taken as seriously as it once was.
>>
>> Having worked for many software companies in the last few years I see
>> the same pattern over and over -- most shops refuse to stay current
>> with Oracle and patchsets -- they're still running 8i, don't want to
>> use Oracle-specific features (clusters, IOTs, etc.) for fear it will
>> lock them into Oracle, and let the developers model and write their
>> own DDL.
>
>When I waited for the DBA to model and write the DDL, it simply never
>got done. I was forced, as a developer (well, not even that, more
>like as an advanced end user, really) to do the modelling and DDL myself
>if I actually wanted to have a schema. And then when I gave the DDL to the
>then DBA to implement (along with expected growth rates), he complained it
>didn't have storage clauses. You are the DBA, how about you add the
>storage clauses?

My experience is that most developers don't know how to set up a datamodel and have never heard of normalization.

>
>>
>> Most of the time I feel they only want a DBA to put out fires.
>>
>> Here are some recent examples ...
>
>Most of these things don't sound specific to only DBAs at all, it is merely
>an industry-wide Dilbert cartoon, viewed through the eyes of a DBA.
>
>>
>> - I had to pull teeth to get my current company to switch to RMAN.
>>
>> - I got laughed at for naming NOT NULL constraints in my CREATE TABLE
>> scripts
>
>Well, this one I kind of see. Why would a numeric not null column need a
>separately named not null constraint any more than it needs a separately
>named numericity constraint. Both of these constraints are inherent to the
>column definition, are they not?
>
>>
>> - I had a one of my designs tossed out because it had triggers,
>> clusters, and deferrable FK constraints in it.
>>
>> - I have been telling management for almost a year to get off 8i --
>> falls on deaf ears of course
>>
>> - I get apps tossed at me with hundreds of poorly written queries
>> (correlated subqueries everywhere, NOT EXISTS, etc.) that I have to
>> rewrite for speed.
>
>Well, isn't that part of your job? Is your complaint that the developers
>aren't tuning their own queries (which if they did would make DBAs even
>more trivial) or that developers are even writing queries in the first
>place?
>

His complaint is that most developers don't KNOW how to tune their queries. Consequently the crapplication work as long as it contains 50 records. As soon as it gets into production the crapplication collapses and developers start blaming the DBA, who 'doesn't know anything about databases'

>
>> - I get crap from the UNIX SAs at just the thought using 10g ASM when
>> we finally upgrade, by that time Oracle 13 will be out.
>>
>> - I have developers who commit every SQL statement and throw highly
>> denormalized tables at me, but management still feels they should NOT
>> have to come to me to get a table designed.
>>
>> - HA requirements but they refuse to use RAC or Data Guard.
>
>Are they legitimate HA requirements, or does someone just like saying
>24/7 because it makes them sound hip?
>
>> This is not just my current company, but they all seem to be the same
>> lately. It seems that the Java shops operate this way more than
>> anyone else -- very hostile attitude towards Oracle and DBAs in
>> general.
>>
>> Is it just me, or does this go on everywhere?
>
>Not just everywhere, but with every other profession as well.
>
>Xho

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA