No, that was my opinion. Do you imply I'm not qualified to be a DBA?
Well, I would be ashamed to be called a master of extents and segment
management.
JT wrote:
> If this was intended to be a humorous quote from another faux DBA, then
> thanks for the laugh! If that was your own opinion (and I'm assuming not),
> then do society a favor by quiting your job and living off unemployment.
> ;-)
>
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_nospaum_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1124385453.899643.54220_at_f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > Another source for quote of the week.
> >
> > Although the author is unfair emphasizing that DBA has to be aware char
> > vs varchar2 difference. The character string types in SQL are just
> > plain silly. For how long ordinary programming languages have [a
> > single] type String [with unlimited bounds] already? Also when did you
> > design a database schema with char datatype last time? In a word, there
> > is not a single advantage of char over varchar2. Therefore, char is not
> > even worth mentioned, and should just be deprecated: there are to many
> > really important things on DBA plate.
> >
> > Mike Labosh wrote:
> >> I am sure many of you folks are already subscribed, but for those who are
> >> not, here's a story of some DBA job interviews of candidates that should
> >> just be summarily shot:
> >>
> >> (This will wrap)
> >>
> >> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sMcCown/howdoyouspellsql_printversion.asp
> >>
> >
Received on Thu Aug 18 2005 - 13:14:09 CDT
