March 15, 2012 at 8:47 am
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.
:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
Gaby
________________________________________________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
- Albert Einstein
March 15, 2012 at 8:50 am
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
I would expect this of someone fresh out of school with CS/IS/MIS degree and no practical experience. This is basic 100 level information.
March 15, 2012 at 8:55 am
jcrawf02 (3/15/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/14/2012)
Lynn Pettis (3/14/2012)
GilaMonster (3/14/2012)
jcrawf02 (3/14/2012)
I don't know, that's always bothered me because he never went back before then to even check on her (at least we're not told that) but he's got this immense attachment that he's hiding somewhere.Jedi aren't supposed to have attachments. Their loyalties are the the Force, the Order, the Republic and to themselves and no other. "A Jedi is a Jedi, first, foremost and only. For a Jedi to divide his attentions between the will of the Force and the will of others is to invite disaster" Master Hoche Trit ~1000 BBY
Hence he would have been encouraged not to check up on her.
It's worth noting that the prohibition of attachments was a reasonably late rule of the Order, it was only in effect from the time of the battle of Rusaan (~1000 BBY) until the destruction of the Order by Palpatine and Vader. So 1000 years out of the 25 000 year history.
Sorry, when I play in Starwars RPGs I tend to play Jedi, so I can spout off portions of the Code
I'm sorry, I have to ask. If they could have attachments for the first 24,000 years why did this one Jedi Master decide it was bad? Seems like it could create tensions that might add to a young Jedi falling prey to the Dark Side.
In reality, priests could have families for the first several hundred to 1000 years of the church. The celibacy thing only started because priests were handing down their parishes to their sons and gaining too much local power and independence from Rome.
I'm not sure that's the only reason for celibacy. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 [...]He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Oh, I'm sure they used that as part of the justification, but the primary reason it became church policy is as I stated above.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 15, 2012 at 9:00 am
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
To be fair, when most of your experience is gained on the job, you might not know certain names for things or abbreviations. I've been creating databases for over 20 years and I had to look up DML and DDL just now. Of course, I know what a primary key is and someone not knowing that would give me pause, but when's the last time at work you referred to things as DDL or DML? Maybe things are different if you spend a lot of time with permissions, but those terms honestly never come up for me even though I'm well versed in the command groupings they refer to.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 15, 2012 at 9:21 am
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
More like too little. Not demanding enough.
10 years should be more like:
Under what circumstances is an idex scan better than a seek?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of surrogate vs natural keys?
When should your clustered index not be your primary key?
What are the differences between DDL and DML triggers?
That kind of thing.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 15, 2012 at 9:27 am
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
Nope - not too demanding. Also not too surprising of a story.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
March 15, 2012 at 9:28 am
Stefan Krzywicki (3/15/2012)
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
To be fair, when most of your experience is gained on the job, you might not know certain names for things or abbreviations. I've been creating databases for over 20 years and I had to look up DML and DDL just now. Of course, I know what a primary key is and someone not knowing that would give me pause, but when's the last time at work you referred to things as DDL or DML? Maybe things are different if you spend a lot of time with permissions, but those terms honestly never come up for me even though I'm well versed in the command groupings they refer to.
They're critical concepts to certain types of auditing, and they used to matter a lot when it came to performance-tuning (the old "don't mix DDL and DML" in SQL 2000 and before [still sort of matters, but a lot less than it used to]). But if you know the concepts and not the names, that would still be good enough in my book.
Definitely agree on the terminology point. I once "lost" an interview because I didn't know some SSIS terminology due to being self-taught. Knew the technology, could build the solutions they needed, but didn't know a couple of terms. They loved me in the first two interviews, then passed on me because of that. (Ended up being a good thing, since I landed a better job at a better company with better pay than they were offering. But was a bit stressful at that moment, till the better opportunity came along.)
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon
March 15, 2012 at 9:37 am
Stefan Krzywicki (3/15/2012)
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
To be fair, when most of your experience is gained on the job, you might not know certain names for things or abbreviations. I've been creating databases for over 20 years and I had to look up DML and DDL just now. Of course, I know what a primary key is and someone not knowing that would give me pause, but when's the last time at work you referred to things as DDL or DML? Maybe things are different if you spend a lot of time with permissions, but those terms honestly never come up for me even though I'm well versed in the command groupings they refer to.
True on that part, even I had to catch myself on some terminology and look it up in the past. My boss, whose background is SAP and Oracle, loves asking the referential integrity questions, but then again, when he hired me, I came in as a junior so some stuff was not expected of me. DML/DDL I can understand, but in 10 years, through sheer exposure if anyone read any papers/literatures/blogs, they'd be exposed to those terms. The primary key one still scares me.
Gaby
________________________________________________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
- Albert Einstein
March 15, 2012 at 9:38 am
I think even the best of candidates have blind spots.
I still cringe about early on in my career, I routinely truncated the transaction log as I was self taught and that's what the previous guy did.
10 minutes of reading through an article, understanding the underlying architecture and the knowledge gap disappeared. There's a quote I love by Will Rogers:
An ignorant person is one who doesn't know what you have just found out
March 15, 2012 at 10:05 am
I have also lost jobs on terminology as I am also self-taught. I'm more a data analyst/programmer than DBA but around SQL since 6.5 and recordsets from same time period. I lost the job on "shredding a recordset". Came home and looked it up, I've been doing this FOR YEARS!! oh well... added to my "forgiveable weaknesses" list: "I do not always know the proper term since my education is mostly on the job ..."
Along came a better job where they didn't care what I called things, they drilled me on how I built things, what I would do in Situation X or Y...
So perhaps the idea is to tailor the questions to the applicants' backgrounds. Ask me how I would do something and I will tell you. ask me how to use FunkyTermX and I might not know. I don't know CompSci 101 since I never had it.
But to not know what a primary key is and to be interviewing for any kind of database-intensive job ... ?? Scariest part is he maybe found a job as lead DBA !!!
March 15, 2012 at 10:12 am
GSquared (3/15/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/15/2012)
GabyYYZ (3/15/2012)
Is it too much to ask that a DBA candidate, who says he has 10 years experience with SQL Server, know what a primary key is, or know the difference between DML and DDL? My boss just shook his head afterwards.:crazy:
Edit: Maybe we're just too demanding.
To be fair, when most of your experience is gained on the job, you might not know certain names for things or abbreviations. I've been creating databases for over 20 years and I had to look up DML and DDL just now. Of course, I know what a primary key is and someone not knowing that would give me pause, but when's the last time at work you referred to things as DDL or DML? Maybe things are different if you spend a lot of time with permissions, but those terms honestly never come up for me even though I'm well versed in the command groupings they refer to.
They're critical concepts to certain types of auditing, and they used to matter a lot when it came to performance-tuning (the old "don't mix DDL and DML" in SQL 2000 and before [still sort of matters, but a lot less than it used to]). But if you know the concepts and not the names, that would still be good enough in my book.
Definitely agree on the terminology point. I once "lost" an interview because I didn't know some SSIS terminology due to being self-taught. Knew the technology, could build the solutions they needed, but didn't know a couple of terms. They loved me in the first two interviews, then passed on me because of that. (Ended up being a good thing, since I landed a better job at a better company with better pay than they were offering. But was a bit stressful at that moment, till the better opportunity came along.)
Yeah, I always find it funny in an interview when they're throwing around a term I don't know and I ask for clarification and then say "oh, that! Well blah, blah, blah, blah" I do find on occasion that when I ask for clarification, they don't know how to tell me without answering their question because they're not technical and found the questions on-line.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 15, 2012 at 10:16 am
herladygeekedness (3/15/2012)
I have also lost jobs on terminology as I am also self-taught. I'm more a data analyst/programmer than DBA but around SQL since 6.5 and recordsets from same time period. I lost the job on "shredding a recordset". Came home and looked it up, I've been doing this FOR YEARS!! oh well... added to my "forgiveable weaknesses" list: "I do not always know the proper term since my education is mostly on the job ..."Along came a better job where they didn't care what I called things, they drilled me on how I built things, what I would do in Situation X or Y...
So perhaps the idea is to tailor the questions to the applicants' backgrounds. Ask me how I would do something and I will tell you. ask me how to use FunkyTermX and I might not know. I don't know CompSci 101 since I never had it.
But to not know what a primary key is and to be interviewing for any kind of database-intensive job ... ?? Scariest part is he maybe found a job as lead DBA !!!
When you're on a job interview, you're interviewing them as much as they're interviewing you, though it may not always feel like it, especially in a bad job market. If I'm on an interview and their questions are all definitions or expecting specific answers, I tend to stay away. If the interview is "how would you approach, what did you do when, and what do you think of", then I know it'll be a better position.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 15, 2012 at 10:19 am
Stefan Krzywicki (3/15/2012)
jcrawf02 (3/15/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/14/2012)
In reality, priests could have families for the first several hundred to 1000 years of the church. The celibacy thing only started because priests were handing down their parishes to their sons and gaining too much local power and independence from Rome.I'm not sure that's the only reason for celibacy. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 [...]He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Oh, I'm sure they used that as part of the justification, but the primary reason it became church policy is as I stated above.
Well, that first several hundred to 1000 was actually about 1100 if you are aiming at the point where marriage for people in holy order became complete anathema. But I don't think nepotsim was the motivation. No, instead there was a gradual growth (over a period of more than 1000 years) of anti-marriage sentiment, all started off by Paul's poisonous attitude, not a sudden decision on the grounds that inherited parishes and sees were a bad thing.
Paul's anti-marriage poison (which was completely opposed to the views of the apostoles, and just one of many causes of his feuding with James and with Peter, both of whom - like others of the 11 - married) gave crazy people a handle to force extremist views on the churches, with partial restrictions on marriage for those already in holy orders being pushed certainly before 200 AD, proposals that those who were married and became ordained were should be forbidden intercourse with their wives are recorded at various councils/synods from about 300 AD, and official bans on marriage for those in orders promulgated by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as various dates for various grades (for bishops earlier than for priests, for priests earlier than for deacons) staring certainly no later than 600 AD (although there were escape clauses and the rules were often disregarded) and culminating in the RC church's total ban on those in orders marrying in the early 12th century which appears to have been meant to be enforced thoroughly but wasn't (half a milennium later there were still exceptions, although not as many as there had been earlier).
The Eastern Chrches (even those in full communion with Rome) take a more relaxed attitude tho celibacy or ordained ministers.
Of course the protestant movement took the view that this ban was corrupt and unchristian doctrine (someone must have been reading some history) and in general married ministers should be preferred to unmarried ones; the Anglican church was a little weird, the original rules created for Henry VIII just asserted his superiority over the Pope and allowed him to have some on-demand divorces or annullments (other inconvenient wives he had executed on trumped-up treason charges, which was perhaps less difficult to organise) so it wasn't really part of the protestant movement; later on it acquired some of the characteristics of protestantism, and Henry's son, Edward VI, changed the rules to allow married clergy (but it still calls itsef a Catholic church, not a protestant one; often one has to say Anglo-Catholic to avoid confusion because most people in continental Europe regard Catholic as meaning Roman Catholic).
The Jewish tradition recommended marriage for all men, including their priests and rabbis (priests were expected to refrain from intercourse for a period before officating in religious ceremonies, but not at other times). Modern Judaism continues to regard marriage as suitable for everyone, no exceptions. Life-long celibacy is in theory forbidden in Islam, so no celibacy of the clergy there. In fact the only religion I know other than Roman Catholicism and some of the variations of Eastern Orthodox that requires celibate clergy is Buddhism (and not even all forms of that, I think - maybe I should add Jediism to that?). So celibate clergy is a pretty rare concept.
Tom
March 15, 2012 at 10:40 am
L' Eomot Inversé (3/15/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/15/2012)
jcrawf02 (3/15/2012)
Stefan Krzywicki (3/14/2012)
In reality, priests could have families for the first several hundred to 1000 years of the church. The celibacy thing only started because priests were handing down their parishes to their sons and gaining too much local power and independence from Rome.I'm not sure that's the only reason for celibacy. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:32-33
32 [...]He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
Oh, I'm sure they used that as part of the justification, but the primary reason it became church policy is as I stated above.
Well, that first several hundred to 1000 was actually about 1100 if you are aiming at the point where marriage for people in holy order became complete anathema. But I don't think nepotsim was the motivation. No, instead there was a gradual growth (over a period of more than 1000 years) of anti-marriage sentiment, all started off by Paul's poisonous attitude, not a sudden decision on the grounds that inherited parishes and sees were a bad thing.
Paul's anti-marriage poison (which was completely opposed to the views of the apostoles, and just one of many causes of his feuding with James and with Peter, both of whom - like others of the 11 - married) gave crazy people a handle to force extremist views on the churches, with partial restrictions on marriage for those already in holy orders being pushed certainly before 200 AD, proposals that those who were married and became ordained were should be forbidden intercourse with their wives are recorded at various councils/synods from about 300 AD, and official bans on marriage for those in orders promulgated by both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches as various dates for various grades (for bishops earlier than for priests, for priests earlier than for deacons) staring certainly no later than 600 AD (although there were escape clauses and the rules were often disregarded) and culminating in the RC church's total ban on those in orders marrying in the early 12th century which appears to have been meant to be enforced thoroughly but wasn't (half a milennium later there were still exceptions, although not as many as there had been earlier).
The Eastern Chrches (even those in full communion with Rome) take a more relaxed attitude tho celibacy or ordained ministers.
Of course the protestant movement took the view that this ban was corrupt and unchristian doctrine (someone must have been reading some history) and in general married ministers should be preferred to unmarried ones; the Anglican church was a little weird, the original rules created for Henry VIII just asserted his superiority over the Pope and allowed him to have some on-demand divorces or annullments (other inconvenient wives he had executed on trumped-up treason charges, which was perhaps less difficult to organise) so it wasn't really part of the protestant movement; later on it acquired some of the characteristics of protestantism, and Henry's son, Edward VI, changed the rules to allow married clergy (but it still calls itsef a Catholic church, not a protestant one; often one has to say Anglo-Catholic to avoid confusion because most people in continental Europe regard Catholic as meaning Roman Catholic).
The Jewish tradition recommended marriage for all men, including their priests and rabbis (priests were expected to refrain from intercourse for a period before officating in religious ceremonies, but not at other times). Modern Judaism continues to regard marriage as suitable for everyone, no exceptions. Life-long celibacy is in theory forbidden in Islam, so no celibacy of the clergy there. In fact the only religion I know other than Roman Catholicism and some of the variations of Eastern Orthodox that requires celibate clergy is Buddhism (and not even all forms of that, I think - maybe I should add Jediism to that?). So celibate clergy is a pretty rare concept.
Thanks on the date clarification. I thought it was around then, but started doubting myself.
And yes, I was referring to the Western Christian, pre-protestant church.
--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
March 15, 2012 at 10:41 am
When you're on a job interview, you're interviewing them as much as they're interviewing you, though it may not always feel like it, especially in a bad job market. If I'm on an interview and their questions are all definitions or expecting specific answers, I tend to stay away. If the interview is "how would you approach, what did you do when, and what do you think of", then I know it'll be a better position.
Yes, this is true! And even in a bad job market (I was let go June 2010), I was picky. Last thing I wanted was to take a job that I knew I wouldn't want to keep. I am lucky to have not become That Desperate. I know that not everyone is so lucky and that many feel they need to "say anything to land it" while there were times I left interviews when we would both be candid: this isn't a fit. saves everyone's time.
When I interviewed here, they were interested in my degree not being tech, and how did I come to be technical? They found out that I was smart and could either figure things out for myself or go root out potential solutions until I found one that worked. They also discovered that I consider data to be an organization's most precious asset, after its people. I had not yet known that they feel the exact same way here - that the data is GOLD but teh people are Diamonds.
We moved into discussion of a "mini data warehouse" I had created and the cool thing was that they were excited about what I was saying, how I did it, why/what the users got out of it, and I was excited about their explaining what was happening here (very early in DW building - in at The Beginning!)
I am not surprised to still be very happy here, coming up on 1 year. They knew what they were getting with me and I knew what I was getting with them. It's unfortunate that it rarely works out that way for both sides due to misplaced expectations. Or someone simply not being honest.
Viewing 15 posts - 34,771 through 34,785 (of 66,000 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply