May 28, 2015 at 4:22 am
meilenb (5/24/2015)
Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O are factors in climate change. CH4 (refrigerants) in particular is a 21 multiplier to CO2, R-508B (refrigerant) is a 10,350 multiplier, etc. etc. yet there are still thousands of scientists who argue climate change is not human caused
There aren't. Certainly not with any relevant academic credentials, put it this way, I bet you'd find it rather hard to find a proper peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal arguing this. You'll probably get all kinds of swivel-eyed loons over on Fox in the states spoting such nonsense - but I doubt there's a scientific credential among them.
In the UK, when the BBC are required to pull in a talking head to deny climate change in the interests of 'balance', they're usually stuck with bringing in Nigel Lawson - an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer and oil and coal company lobbyist. He's not even really an Economist, let alone a reputable scientist.
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
May 28, 2015 at 4:36 am
andrew gothard (5/28/2015)
meilenb (5/24/2015)
Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O are factors in climate change. CH4 (refrigerants) in particular is a 21 multiplier to CO2, R-508B (refrigerant) is a 10,350 multiplier, etc. etc. yet there are still thousands of scientists who argue climate change is not human caused
There aren't. Certainly not with any relevant academic credentials, put it this way, I bet you'd find it rather hard to find a proper peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal arguing this. You'll probably get all kinds of swivel-eyed loons over on Fox in the states spoting such nonsense - but I doubt there's a scientific credential among them.
In the UK, when the BBC are required to pull in a talking head to deny climate change in the interests of 'balance', they're usually stuck with bringing in Nigel Lawson - an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer and oil and coal company lobbyist. He's not even really an Economist, let alone a reputable scientist.
Seriously guys, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but this isn't the place for this particular debate. Heck, a cursory Google search shows that "There aren't" is easily dismissed[/url] from multiple sources. And, please, I'm not picking sides on this debate. I just want to point out that it is entirely possible that this is not the cut & dried, "gravity drops apples on peoples heads" level of scientific discussion that has been claimed.
Can we bring this back around to focus on databases, SQL Server and the need for using something that at least resembles the scientific method when talking about stuff like the number of JOINs you can have in a query?
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
May 28, 2015 at 5:03 am
David Burrows (5/28/2015)
Jeff Moden (5/24/2015)
It's funny how people think that. If you get the product out the door and it's broken, you're going to need a whole lot more money to fix it than if you did it right the first time.Meh! It's how I stay employed 😛 😉
LOL
ROFL! 😛 Not so ironically... me too! It's how I know how much it costs. :hehe:
Shifting gears, glad to see you still hang around here, ol' friend.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 28, 2015 at 5:15 am
Grant Fritchey (5/28/2015)
andrew gothard (5/28/2015)
meilenb (5/24/2015)
Everyone knows that CO2, CH4 and N2O are factors in climate change. CH4 (refrigerants) in particular is a 21 multiplier to CO2, R-508B (refrigerant) is a 10,350 multiplier, etc. etc. yet there are still thousands of scientists who argue climate change is not human caused
There aren't. Certainly not with any relevant academic credentials, put it this way, I bet you'd find it rather hard to find a proper peer reviewed paper from a reputable journal arguing this. You'll probably get all kinds of swivel-eyed loons over on Fox in the states spoting such nonsense - but I doubt there's a scientific credential among them.
In the UK, when the BBC are required to pull in a talking head to deny climate change in the interests of 'balance', they're usually stuck with bringing in Nigel Lawson - an ex Chancellor of the Exchequer and oil and coal company lobbyist. He's not even really an Economist, let alone a reputable scientist.
Seriously guys, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but this isn't the place for this particular debate. Heck, a cursory Google search shows that "There aren't" is easily dismissed[/url] from multiple sources. And, please, I'm not picking sides on this debate. I just want to point out that it is entirely possible that this is not the cut & dried, "gravity drops apples on peoples heads" level of scientific discussion that has been claimed.
Can we bring this back around to focus on databases, SQL Server and the need for using something that at least resembles the scientific method when talking about stuff like the number of JOINs you can have in a query?
Heh... crud. Bummer. This thread had the potential for beating out the two "bankers rounding" threads for duration and conjecture and there you go getting all practical and all. :-):-D:-P
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 28, 2015 at 5:37 am
Eric M Russell (5/27/2015)
Depending on the organization, I'm not opposed to allowing Developers read-only access to production, especially if they are expected to wear the Data Analyst hat on occasion. Even more advanced things like querying system views, viewing execution plans, and event tracing can be allowed on a piecemeal basis to non-DBA users by granting them "ALTER TRACE" and "VIEW SERVER STATE" permission. The same goes for 3rd party tools.However, I totally don't undertand why a Developer or an application would need SYSADMIN access to production, unless they are also wearing the DBA hat.
That's why we use "production copy" databases in my company. Not so much because the Devs are Data Analysts as because they sometimes need to troubleshoot production bugs. So we restore day-old copies of the dbs down to our QA server, which kills 2 birds with 1 stone. Not only are we regularly testing our backups (yay, us!) but we have read-only copies of production on a non-prod server which doesn't require us to give production-direct permissions.
We also scrub the sensitive info as part of this restore, so there's nothing relevant to steal. So, security covered in multiple ways.
May 28, 2015 at 5:39 am
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
It Depends.
Alan, can I just say I adore you right now for putting this together. @=)
LOVE IT.
May 28, 2015 at 5:50 am
Kyrilluk (5/28/2015)
In other words, the call to scientific method is good but is useless in certain aspects. It's good when everyone can reproduce the research (such as whether a CTE is better than a derived table) but uninteresting when it's based on non-reproducible research ("in my company only DBAs have sysadmin rights because we had developers that screw up stuff in the past").A bit like in science in general. You have highly reproducible research (such as measuring the weight of an electron or the correlation between to quantum state) ,research that is not (climate science, anthropology, etc) and the stuff that is in between (psychology, sociology, economy).
And there we touch the nub of the issue. I can run all sorts of scientific method analysis against my databases, but because my database schemas and datum are different from everyone else's, there's no guarantee that I can create a scientific method that will produce the same results for anyone else.
Why yes, I could create a fake db with pseudo data, but then while everyone else will be able to use that to produce (or not produce) the same results and analysis that I provided, it won't necessarily hold true results comparable to the databases I work with daily. And I certainly can't expose that structure or datum to the rest of the world because SOX, HIPAA, PII, and pink slips.
So, while I agree in general that we need to approach everything with a scientific method, I think we also need to accept the caveat that "as always, when comparing results in relation to your version / setup of SQL Server, the answer is 'it depends'."
May 28, 2015 at 6:05 am
Brandie Tarvin (5/28/2015)
Kyrilluk (5/28/2015)
In other words, the call to scientific method is good but is useless in certain aspects. It's good when everyone can reproduce the research (such as whether a CTE is better than a derived table) but uninteresting when it's based on non-reproducible research ("in my company only DBAs have sysadmin rights because we had developers that screw up stuff in the past").A bit like in science in general. You have highly reproducible research (such as measuring the weight of an electron or the correlation between to quantum state) ,research that is not (climate science, anthropology, etc) and the stuff that is in between (psychology, sociology, economy).
And there we touch the nub of the issue. I can run all sorts of scientific method analysis against my databases, but because my database schemas and datum are different from everyone else's, there's no guarantee that I can create a scientific method that will produce the same results for anyone else.
Why yes, I could create a fake db with pseudo data, but then while everyone else will be able to use that to produce (or not produce) the same results and analysis that I provided, it won't necessarily hold true results comparable to the databases I work with daily. And I certainly can't expose that structure or datum to the rest of the world because SOX, HIPAA, PII, and pink slips.
So, while I agree in general that we need to approach everything with a scientific method, I think we also need to accept the caveat that "as always, when comparing results in relation to your version / setup of SQL Server, the answer is 'it depends'."
Total agreement on "it depends" here Brandie. Just a side note. One of the reasons I always use AdventureWorks in all my demos and classes and most of my blog posts is because other people will be able to immediately go and test my queries. You'll see lots of other people doing the same thing. That doesn't question you're point, which is correct, just illustrates how we can attempt to provide actual baselines for people to work from.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
May 28, 2015 at 6:06 am
Jeff Moden (5/28/2015)
Shifting gears, glad to see you still hang around here, ol' friend.
Back at ya ol' friend 😀
Yeah still around :w00t: mostly lurking, occasional post
Lot of OP on heavy DBA and admin, well out of my league :pinch:
Far away is close at hand in the images of elsewhere.
Anon.
May 28, 2015 at 6:17 am
meilenb (5/24/2015)
No one is advocating shipping without testing so your comment on that matter is not correct.
People are shipping without adequete testing is the point being made. That, I can tell you now, is happening every day. And it's not just performance and scalability, security is far worse. I can assure you, every day, vendors and dev departments are shipping utter garbage where they've tested it on 200 rows "and performance is OK", and the approach to security is ... "Too hard, $**£ that, it'll be OK"
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
May 28, 2015 at 6:27 am
David.Poole (5/25/2015)
Nice one Gail and good point Jeff about the experiment needing to be reproducible.Another point to watch for when evaluating tools is what the recommended spec is for that tool. Running identical experiments on identical kit is not enough If that kit is below recommended spec for one of the participants.
But there again, how often is that spec based on thorough testing under a range of scenarios? More often it's "How many cores do you get on a blade for X grand? It's that many. VM, you say? It's still 16 cores for our product ... "
I'm a DBA.
I'm not paid to solve problems. I'm paid to prevent them.
May 28, 2015 at 6:32 am
David Burrows (5/28/2015)
Jeff Moden (5/28/2015)
Shifting gears, glad to see you still hang around here, ol' friend.Back at ya ol' friend 😀
Yeah still around :w00t: mostly lurking, occasional post
Lot of OP on heavy DBA and admin, well out of my league :pinch:
I miss your wit and your code. You should come around more often.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
May 28, 2015 at 7:55 am
David Burrows (5/28/2015)
Jeff Moden (5/24/2015)
It's funny how people think that. If you get the product out the door and it's broken, you're going to need a whole lot more money to fix it than if you did it right the first time.Meh! It's how I stay employed 😛 😉
LOL
Haha! Classic!
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
May 28, 2015 at 8:03 am
Brandie Tarvin (5/28/2015)
Alan.B (5/27/2015)
Does the lack of deterministic causality invalidate quantum mechanics?
It Depends.
Alan, can I just say I adore you right now for putting this together. @=)
LOVE IT.
😛
-- Itzik Ben-Gan 2001
May 28, 2015 at 9:02 am
meilenb (5/27/2015) ...
Oh and we don't need to sit here and sling insults. You've got 2 under your belt.
Only problem here, I haven't slung ANY insults. You'd know if I did. Saying your point wasn't made isn't an insult, neither is saying you couldn't read when you started "blaming" the wrong person for what someone else said.
I'm not saying we aren't screwing up our environment. What I am saying is that Climate Change is NOT settled science. There are too many issues around this and too many discrepancies in the published works on both sides for any one to consider this settled in any way. No one on this thread ever mentioned politics or religion until you brought it up and I will ignore the politicians when it comes to this topic. Sorry, they are not experts in this area no matter how much they think they are.
Viewing 15 posts - 106 through 120 (of 168 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply