State of IT and DBMS expertise (Was: The MySQL/PHP pair)

[snip]
>
> I think that, in particular, database design was not taught very much at
> all
> in the 1985-1995 time frame. And even to this day I meet people who are
> otherwise well rounded IT professionals who have almost no clue about how
> to
> design a database (relational or otherwise), and in addition think it's
> something easy, dull, and tedious, like setting up a filing cabinet.
>
In general, I couldn't agree more. I think one of the problems is that implementing an SQL table is soooo easy that designers just implement without considering or incorporating an integrated design. I can't say for sure if this is the case or not. Another issue might be that IT personnel like to construct things, even if the wheel is already built and sufficiently functional. It's a crimp on creativity.

I think the formal education system hasn't necessarily ignored database theory. Heck, I took four classes on this topic in my undergraduate days (and four more during my graduate studies), and they weren't restricted to relational theory. We had the joy and pleasure of covering all types of DBMSs, storage technologies, and distributed paradigms.

I do see a greater number of people who haven't necessarily gone through a formal computer science or information technology program being involved in information technology, however. It is easy to see how formal fundamental concepts just might not have as much relevance as the numbers grow larger.

I also see a disturbing increasing reliance on tools. To exacerbate this, (this is speculation, mind you) businesses don't want highly trained and expensive personnel. They want to have systems simple enough where the normal person can walk in and pick up everything that is needed for their function within a reasonably short period of time.

>
> About DBA's even seen the gamut: people who do backups and authorize
> users
> all the way up to people who are the ONLY PEOPLE IN THE IT DEPARTMENT WHO
> KNOW HOW THE BUSINESS REALLY WORKS!
>
IMHO a good data modeler could possibly know/discover even more than them (as individuals but not necessarily collectively). The data model should be a natural artifact of the business and how it operates in terms of representation, and if the modeler is good, he or she incorporates, integrates, and reconciles all functional and user perspectives. If a top-down approach isn't taken, then the data analyst who synthesizes a model from actual data artificacts might also get a good idea of how the business *really* operates, which is probably different than even the users visualize it. Furthermore, integrating the business beyond departments will yield an even smaller number of people who really know how the business works, if that number exists at all - depending on the size and scope of the enterprise of course.

> (Sorry for shouting... I feel much better now.)

Not a problem. We can all benefit by letting off a little stream I think.
>
> But I'd have to say that it's unusual to run into DBA's who don't know
> simple design.
>
You have yet to be where I've been. :-0. In all fairness, many of them do, but mention serialization, atomicity, the ANSI-SPARC 3-schema architecture, or other rather esoteric things and their eyes roll back. Actually, though, it is very unfair of me to generalize in such a fashion. There are good and bad everywhere.

> Anyway, the thing that bothered me about Bill's response was the leap
> from
> "I had to give up my vacation because they spent money on an untested
> technology" to "Dawn gets it, the RDM has not lived up to its promise."
> That's an enormous leap, and it's completely unjustified.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess. I enjoy strong arguments and facts, personally. In fact, I am quite rigid in requiring them to be convinced of anything. A respect for intellectual honesty is all I ask.

>
> And the idea of avoiding, "hey let's try this new technology" is
> precisely
> the reason why the history of the development of relational databases
> compares favorably with, say the history of the development of operating
> systems or compilers. There was a great deal of thought (theory, one
> might
> say) put into the probable consequences of building the system one way
> versus another. And I'd have to say that the RDM, even with the SQL
> tattoo
> on its arm (or wherever), is in better shape than most of the rest of IT.

I agree, though I also agree with those that hold the possible hope that things can be made even better.

Regards,

Dan Received on Mon Nov 08 2004 - 05:52:13 CET