Apr 12: I'm a writer!

Yeah, I wish. When I was young, before I saw my first computer, I wanted to be either a journalist or a lawyer ;-)

However, Tony Davis (who used to be an editor at Apress) is now responsible for this website and actually paid me real money for this article! It's based on a blog I wrote a while ago. I did think through possible consequences of being paid to write, but as long as I write what I would have written anyway, I suppose it doesn't make any difference. Rest assured, I'll still be doing plenty of unpaid stuff here.

I hope you like the photo that goes with the article. I didn't think a photo of me would fit in with some of the other interesting and beautiful people on there ;-)

Oh, and I can't wait for the response to me writing for a (shhhh!) SQL Server site!

Posted by Doug Burns Comments: (14) Trackback: (1)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

Development DBAs
Doug Burns has written an article about the role of Development DBA and the modern day requirements thereof. I find this especially interesting because “Development DBA” is a job title bucket into which I sometimes fall depending on the emp...
Weblog: OraStory
Tracked: Apr 12, 16:00

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Beth said:
2007-04-12 12:34 - (Reply)

Contratulations! (and, nice article) There's nothing wrong with getting paid for your efforts as long as it doesn't influence the opinions you express. And somehow, I just can't picture that being the case for you.

Enjoy.

#2 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-12 16:11 - (Reply)

Thanks, Beth. I reckon you might be right about me too! ;-)

#3 - Dominic Brooks said:
2007-04-12 17:01 - (Reply)

Nice article, Doug.

The role is database independent (probably like the poorly performing applications that the role needs to know about)

I have fallen into a Development DBA job title bucket before and have found it little different from the Developer, Developer/DBA, Designer/Developer buckets.

The experience varies from site to site but in general I would say that successful responsibilities are:
- Schema design
- Database interface design
- SQL & PL/SQL development
- SQL & PL/SQL code QA
- SQL & PL/SQL code optimisation
- Database release scripting / communication / management
- Testing new database features and implementing as appropriate (together with negotiating acceptibility of said features with production/operational DBAs)
- Advising operational DBAs of application specific functionality / settings
- Diagnosing production issues with application specific database activity
-and this is done as part of the development team rather than the operational DBA team (although
acting as bridge from development to operational DBA).

Cheers,
Dominic

#4 - Mark A. Williams said:
2007-04-13 01:30 - (Reply)

I feel very fortunate that Tony was the technical editor for a couple of projects in which I was lucky enough to be involved.

I have a great deal of respect for him, despite a somewhat disasterous pub crawl a few years back! :-)

Now... to go read Doug's article...

- Mark

#5 - Mark A. Williams said:
2007-04-13 02:19 - (Reply)

...and having read the article I should just like to add my "well said!" to the list.

Cheers for that,

Mark

#6 - Noons said:
2007-04-13 07:01 - (Reply)

"I did think through possible consequences of being paid to write" for a SQL Server site?

I don't think you did! We'll send "da boyz" later to meet you...

:-)

Indeed, can't agree more with what you said and of course regardless of where it was said!

And with a sheepish and somewhat guilty face, I have to admit that where I am now there are a dozen or so Oracle databases and well over a hundred SQL Server ones, all of which are now my "babies"...

Ah well: I've been saying it for years that good old Oracle is facing its biggest challenge from SS nowadays, this is just one more confirmation.

Unfortunately, they are still not listening. Let's hope it won't be too late when they do, it's happened before to many big companies.

#7 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-13 07:52 - (Reply)

Thanks Dominic.

The experience varies from site to site but in general I would say that successful responsibilities are ...

Yes, I think there are a variety of roles that could come under the Dev DBA umbrella. Some of your suggestions strike me as even closer to a Developer/DBA (hoping the difference is obvious) or something I almost talked about in that article a Project DBA, who is focussed on a particular development project. I've performed that role on a couple of occasions.

Not easy to define then, but I had a particular site in mind when I was thinking of dev DBAs, where there was a lot of in-house development and we probably wouldn't be involved in quite the range of activities you're talking about, simply because we had even more people who took care of them!

So, for example, we might only be involved in the latter two of these three ...
- SQL & PL/SQL development
- SQL & PL/SQL code QA
- SQL & PL/SQL code optimisation

The punchline is that my original thoughts on the article where for it to be about different types of DBA role but it didn't seem as appropriate for that web-site. Here are a few examples I had in mind

Dev DBA
Designer/DBA
Project DBA

etc ...

#8 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-13 07:55 - (Reply)

Mark,

I agree whole-heartedly about Tony. What I didn't say enough about in the original blog (it was dashed off in a break from work) is what a pleasure it was working with someone who could help me correct the worst of my mistakes, make style suggestions that turned the words into what I wanted to say in the first place and not force me down the track of writing something different to what I intended.

He's a class act and I learned a lot during the process.

#9 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-13 08:00 - (Reply)

I don't think you did! We'll send "da boyz" later to meet you...

Just make sure that "da boyz" know that there are about 26 boys sitting here waiting for their arrival! (We've joked about this at home in the past, actually. Pity the poor burglar who turns up to see a bunch of cuddly toys waiting for them ...)

there are a dozen or so Oracle databases and well over a hundred SQL Server ones, all of which are now my "babies"...

Well, a database is a database (or should I say a DBMS is a DBMS) and people will use what works best for them. That doesn't stop me thinking that Oracle rocks, though, and you're right, they should listen to what people like about their products and protect them carefully.

#10 - Marco Gralike said:
2007-04-15 11:56 - (Reply)

Doug,

thanks for this great well defined article. In our shop the term for a DDBA = project DBA; We are understaffed, in this respect. Despite that the problem is recognized, management doesn't see (but feels though) the full impact of the non-existence of such a DDBA during our development cycle.

Hopefully, pointing out the article to them, will give an in-house incentive to be more aware of the implications.

Grz

Marco

#11 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-15 20:35 - (Reply)

Thanks Marco.

Project DBA was a term I used over in the comments on the original article. I'm seeing that used more often, with a DBA or part-DBA sitting within next to the developers and I've worked in that role once or twice over the past few years.

#12 - Dimitri Gielis said:
2007-04-18 19:34 - (Reply)

Hi Doug,

It's a bit off topic, but I made a picture for you ;-) Check this out my friend: http://dgielis.blogspot.com/2007/04/collab07-day-2-sessions-apex-sig-and.html

Dimitri

#13 - Doug Burns said:
2007-04-18 21:44 - (Reply)

Hey, thanks Dimitri!

Damn, I don't have a link to your blog or a feed in my RSS reader so I didn't know what I was missing. I'll need to fix that.

#14 - Niall Litchfield said:
2007-04-19 14:56 - (Reply)

QUOTE:
Well, a database is a database (or should I say a DBMS is a DBMS) and people will use what works best for them

definitely say the latter, in the case of Oracle and MSSQL the former is a dangerous comparison; though the definition is actually pretty well identical (bunch of files on a bunch of disks managed by some processes - see I can do dumb) the implementation details make the comparison somewhat awkward.


Add Comment

Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.
BBCode format allowed