June 1, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I got this newsletter and this was one of the reason I change job sometimes.
I am curious what other people would do if they are in such situation?
Even you say you can learn it on your own, but you just cannot put down in your resume that you have the real working experiene. Is it really hurt your career?
May 30, 2008
SQL-Server-Performance.com Newsletter
Dear Members:
Keeping up to date with change is one of the biggest challenges in the IT industry. The current road map implies that a new version of SQL Server will be released every three years. Meaning that you need not only to learn new features every three years but also to unlearn the way you have done things in the past. A great example of this is moving the data and log files in SQL Server. In versions prior to SQL Server 2005 you would move the data and log file by detaching and then reattaching the database. From talking to other DBAs, this is still the method of choice for most people as it is what has worked in the past. However, SQL Server 2005 introduced the ability to use the ALTER DATABASE command to change the file location. Detach and reattach still works, it is just a different way of achieving the same result.
The dilemma with change is how to ensure that your skills remain current in the marketplace? If your organization is still a SQL Server 2000 shop it makes it very difficult to obtain employment with another organization that uses SQL Server 2005 exclusively. The newer version of SQL Server is still a DBMS but your skills are not seen to be the latest and greatest. Meaning that you are not as marketable and your remuneration could be affected as a result. So how do you make sure that your skills remain current if your employer only uses older versions of SQL Server?
- Peter Ward
June 1, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I tend to dis-agree with this letter. I believe that although there enhancements and changes to the 2005 and 2008 version of the product the underlying core skills for a DBA are the same.
With the support for SQL Server 2000 dwindling from Microsoft you can make a good case to your employers for moving the to SQL Server 2005 and hence improving your skills in the new version through your existing job.
Also Many of the jobs advertised, certainly in the UK, are not specific to a sql server versions but more to skills such as backup/recovery, performance tuning, security etc so your 2000 skills would not be “redundant”
If there is no way of improving your skills in your job you can purchase the developer edition and install on your own computer to learn the new features or even persuade your employer a test environment is necessary so you can plan your version upgrade so it has minimal impact on their business…and you get to improve your 2005 knowledge.
Gethyn Elliswww.gethynellis.com
June 1, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I think this is one of the dilemmas with modern software. While software should increase productivity, it sometimes just degrades it because it is too complex, rapidly changing, or just not well documented.
Too many times, there are features that are really fancy, but overall don't add much value other than the additional things one has to consider regarding this fancy feature.
I think XML is one of those features that are really complex (all those types of XML handling within SQL Server), but doesn't give much business value compared to the complexity.
Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
June 1, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Spend %50-60 USD on SQL Server 2005 Developers edition... install it on your home PC. Start answering/verifying questions on this forum... you'll stay current.
But it does takes some dedication on your part. 😉
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 1, 2008 at 9:12 pm
To initiate a new technology in an organization is part of DBA/IT professional’s responsibilities. DBA needs to know the new technology well and convince the related parties to deploy it. This is good for both the business and DBA (to have real world experience).
For training or test/lab environment (if needed), if you ask you may have it; if not, most likely you will not have it.
If company is not comfortable with new technology or is happy with whatever they are having and no plan for moving forward, there is no much future for IT professionals nowadays.
Just my 2 cents.
June 2, 2008 at 6:47 am
Jeff
Even you install SQL Server 2005 and learn it yourself, how do you put it on your resume because you don't have real life working experience?
June 2, 2008 at 7:58 am
Loner (6/2/2008)
JeffEven you install SQL Server 2005 and learn it yourself, how do you put it on your resume because you don't have real life working experience?
I just direct them to this website... over 9,000 posts and 8 major technical articles is really hard to ignore. Especially the posts that show a pretty good handle on performance issues.
I also have a list of major accomplishments on the first page of my resume right after the "objectives". Things like "Rewrote a dupe check routine across 93 four million row tables that used to take 24 hours to sometimes fail so that it runs in 15 minutes and hasn't failed yet." Even though it doesn't say "SQL Server 2005", they don't care after reading things like that.
My biggest problem has been that there aren't many SQL Server jobs within 50 miles of my home... mostly Oracle and "Java with some SQL experience".
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 2, 2008 at 9:18 am
Where do you live? There is no SQL Server job around your area ? Are you open to re-locate?
June 2, 2008 at 9:54 am
I think that you wouldn't necessarily put this on your resume if you'd been working with the product at home, but you can mention it in the interview. Or you can add a "self study" line and try to get interest from an employer.
Or better yet, include this in your cover letter. Tell them you don't have SQL 2005 in your current company, but you are making efforts to learn on your own.
June 2, 2008 at 11:11 am
Loner (6/2/2008)
Where do you live? There is no SQL Server job around your area ? Are you open to re-locate?
There are some... Most are filled and the rest require either Java, ASP, of C# as the primary skill. I'm currently employeed but the Detroit area is big on Oracle, not SQL Server. And, nope, I've moved 65 times in my life... I'm pretty sure I'm all done moving... thanks, anyway.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 2, 2008 at 11:32 am
Wow, 65 times, and I thought I moved a lot with my 8 times... 😉
Hope you have found your peace in the area you live now 🙂
Best Regards,
Chris Büttner
June 2, 2008 at 3:41 pm
65 .... wow... if it is not a record it must be really close 😀
* Noel
June 3, 2008 at 9:18 am
The organization I work for has also been very slow to adopt SQL Server 2005. We do have an instance of it (standard version) and despite having virtually zero real applications on it, I have turned it into an Admin server which does audits and runs jobs. You could probably adopt that with SQL Developer Edition (just to try it out of course 🙂 ), so you could at least get your hands on it and do something productive with it. I found the improved DB Mail makes it really good to spawn jobs from which will give you some added experience.
June 4, 2008 at 11:13 am
is there any company that buys every version of every piece of software they own for every server?
we have SQL 2005 on the core servers and sql 2000 at some remote offices with the hardware being 10 years old in some cases.
if we were to upgrade it would mean having our QA department test every application on the new version of SQL which would take 6 months or so. then there would be a multi-month deployment process. and by the time you fix the problems, a new version comes out. no one wants to be in a constant upgrade process. and you will never learn all the features of the product either.
June 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm
When SQL 2005 came out I told my boss that if we had no plan in place for upgrading to it within a year of release I would change job.
I quit there in September 2006. They are still on SQL 2000.
My first job at the new company was to upgrade to SQL 2005. This was accomplished within 2 weeks of me starting, with me having zero SQL 2005 experience.... Yeah was an interresting first month, but with only about 4 hours of total downtime. Most likely helped that I have done every single conversion possible from 6.0 forward. Some of the lessons learned still applies even though the version is completely different.
Besides that hard core of an attitude... I try to mostly keep up on the technology on a theoretical basis leading up to the release of a new version, then when I find new things that could be a major help with a current project, I start pushing for the new version.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply