SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Craig Farrell / Getting Started in SQL Server / Latest Posts

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:34:52 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (10/27/2011)[/b][hr]I finaly got round to reading this article, after a vey long delay (it's been sitting in mt "to read" stack for the best part of a year). It's a great article. Reading it cheered me up. I wish I had read it earlier. Craig, thanks for this - it really is good.[/quote]Thanks Tom. It's always nice to hear about your work in an appreciative light a bit after the fact. I'm glad you enjoyed it... Now for the debate! :w00t:[quote] (Hey Kraig, I though you were supposed to write Evil articles, not Good ones? Or does your article quality change to match your nickname? [and if so, how do you organise to change the artcile quality for old articles when your nick changes? - or is that the problem I'm observing?])[/quote]I'm missing the last piece of that, we'll blame it on the lack of caffeine. I'll laugh later when I get the second joke. :-D(There was some editing for length below, but tried to keep the flavor)[quote]First, the level of knowledge a level 1 (raw beginner) applicant needs. This may be a left pond vs right pond distinction. Over here, many of us are prepared to accept ... no knowledge at all of databases. This is partly because we know that most UK Universities don't teach anything about databases [/quote]... nor do ours...[quote]...so people with CS qualifications usually don't know anything about databases (or at least nothing practical ...An awful lot of Turing award winners and other CS gurus came into computing with no previous knowledge of it at all, so maybe someone with ... no knowledge at all of computing can quickly become competent at computing or database design or administration (think of Ted Codd, Chris Date, Charles Bachman, Tony Hoare, Cliff Jones, and many many more).[/quote]Agreed. As a further example of my agreeability, I'm self taught myself. I don't even *have* a degree.[quote]And of course because some of us remember that if recruiters had wanted knowledge of computing when we were young we would still be mathematicians (or whatever) and not computer types. So the idea that a level 1 job requires a pretty good grounding seems wrong.[/quote]This is the crux of the issue, and you're right, this may be a job location issue. Most places I've worked for when looking for a Junior in the United States (I can't even speak for Canada) will not accept a complete newbie. The time investment in training someone who hasn't even attempted to train themselves is not considered valuable to the business unless it's an internal hire or an intern... or desperation.[quote]Next is your description(s) or level III - or rather stopping at level III. To me, someone who can only do half the job is nowhere near the top. If they can't combine being the guru, the guy who knows everything in their specialities with being able to motivate and steer a team they need to learn new skills. Maybe it's a level IV - but we need some people who can do both halves of that.[/quote]I agree, and they exist. The sad fact is though many people, again in the US, who create the job listings really do only need solid technical competency but a senior in ability to lead a team. It's a horrible phrasing that's being perpetuated through our market. They really are separate skillsets to me. I've witnessed far too many very good people who just simply cannot learn the necessary social skills to hold a team together well.I've also been told my definition of a Level III is a bit extreme. To me, a Level III technically is someone who walks into a room with (as an example) Jeff Moden, Gail Shaw, and Paul White, and not only holds their own easily but brings a new idea or two to the table. Please note.. I'm NOT a III technically... yet. The majority of the world is just a II (Just a Bill for anyone who remembers school-house rock!)[quote]Also, I think you are missing what is really the top technical level... there's no-one to consult because no-one knows the answer, and is going to move the state of the art forwards because he is too stobborn to accept defeat. ... Let's ask, was Ted Codd as a database developer what you would call level III or was he level V? Was Chris Dace level III or was he level IV or was he level V?[/quote]That's like asking me to rate the effective level of DaVinci in Art, or Madam Curie in her research skills, or more aptly, was Euclid (sp?) an effective mathmatician.I can't. I have to deal with the 99% of us.[quote]Finally, I accuse you of telling people to shoot too low: Database Architect "is an end goal for a career".[/quote]I'll give you the point that was perhaps a poor turn of phrase, however, not everyone is able to become a mental giant for others to stand on. Most of us will simply ride their shoulders, due to a thousand external factors. Family involvement in free time, outside interests, a throttled business environment disallowing direct interaction, and other internal factors of ability and intellect.I've seen far too many self-styled architects without enough knowledge to feel that it IS something that needs to be called out as an ability you reach for along the way, and it's not quickly achieved, if ever. And, to be perfectly honest, I was one of those people for a bit.[quote]Surely we should encourage people to aspire to the job that combines database architect with overall application and system architect and line manager of database development (or even line manager of all development, IT, and support - there are such jobs, and if you are good you can get there, even if you are not quite good enough to reach what I called level V). Or maybe to some other job [b]that's a bit more than database architect[/b], even if it doesn't combine all those other things?[/quote]I believe the real difference here is that you combine technical and managerial competence into another tier of ability. I do not. Technical competence is all that's required to be a III, in my opinion and experience. External skills to SQL Server (which I have, I consider myself a level I SysAdmin and VB.Net coder, and a MySQL admin I, amongst others) should have little to nothing to do with your rating as to your ability in SQL Server. Now, should there be some kind of holistic rating, discussing your ability across all products and interoperability? Most likely. That was a bit much to try to wrap around for an article of this depth.I agree with you that once you start reaching the upper tiers of knowledge in a product you need to make decisions about where you want to go. It has taken me over a year of catch up just to try to have intelligent discussions with the gurus around here, to understand knowledge they take for granted. To catch up will require yet more time in just learning the engine that deeply, years in fact. I figure I'm about average for most DBA/Devs in ability, time availabily, and desire.Where in there do you propose someone who's trying to keep up with the product, learn all the ins and outs of the in depth components of the product, and do their real job come up with the time to do the same with another major piece of the development cycle? I've been doing this 10 years, and I'll admit I'm not always gung-ho about keeping up my training. Usually I'm just exhausted from work and my brain wants to take a Tequila vacation for an evening... or my gf would REALLY like it if I didn't bring a tome out to the restaurant for dinner. From my perspective, the people you're speaking about don't work in databases, they're dedicated to computers in general, or are gifted far beyond the rest of us. For many in the industry it's a fight just to stay current, never mind figure out the nuances of NUMA (as an example) beyond: "It multiplies these counters in the monitor, and we need to change this and this... the white paper says so." I'm afraid this is something we'll probably go round and round on. You speak of the occasional god, I'm talking to the staff.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

L' Eomot Inversé — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:57:47 GMT

I finaly got round to reading this article, after a vey long delay (it's been sitting in mt "to read" stack for the best part of a year). It's a great article. Reading it cheered me up. I wish I had read it earlier. Craig, thanks for this - it really is good. (Hey Kraig, I though you were supposed to write Evil articles, not Good ones? Or does your article quality change to match your nickname? [and if so, how do you organise to change the artcile quality for old articles when your nick changes? - or is that the problem I'm observing?])But there are a couple (or a couple of couples) of things in it that I don't really agree with, although mostly the disagreement is minor.First, the level of knowledge a level 1 (raw beginner) applicant needs. This may be a left pond vs right pond distinction. Over here, many of us are prepared to accept what we might call a "trainee DBA" or a "trainee database developer" with pretty well no knowledge at all of databases. This is partly because we know that most UK Universities don't teach anything about databases in their CS degrees (or at least, not anyting more that you could easily teach in third grade) so people with CS qualifications usually don't know anything about databases (or at least nothing practical - they may learn some abstruse theoretical stuff, but not how it fits to the real world). And it's partly because many people (including me) remember that an awful lot of Turing award winners and other CS gurus came into computing with no previous knowledge of it at all, so maybe someone with a Music degree, or a Mechanical Engineering degree, or a French Literature degree, or a Maths degree, or a Literae Humaniores degree or even no degree at all and no knowledge at all of computing can quickly become competent at computing or database design or administration (think of Ted Codd, Chris Date, Charles Bachman, Tony Hoare, Cliff Jones, and many many more). And of course because some of us remember that if recruiters had wanted knowledge of computing when we were young we would still be mathematicians (or whatever) and not computer types. So the idea that a level 1 job requires a pretty good grounding seems wrong.Next is your description(s) or level III - or rather stopping at level III. To me, someone who can only do half the job is nowhere near the top. If they can't combine being the guru, the guy who knows everything in their specialities with being able to motivate and steer a team they need to learn new skills. Maybe it's a level IV - but we need some people who can do both halves of that.Also, I think you are missing what is really the top technical level; this is the guy who is perfectly happy when he hasn't a clue how to do something, who doesn't care if he has to look things up or consult someone because he doesn't have the expertise, but also doesn't care if there's no-one to consult because no-one knows the answer, and is going to move the state of the art forwards because he is too stobborn to accept defeat. Maybe that's level V? Let's ask, was Ted Codd as a database developer what you would call level III or was he level V? Was Chris Dace level III or was he level IV or was he level V?Finally, I accuse you of telling people to shoot too low: Database Architect "is an end goal for a career". Surely we should encourage people to aspire to the job that combines database architect with overall application and system architect and line manager of database development (or even line manager of all development, IT, and support - there are such jobs, and if you are good you can get there, even if you are not quite good enough to reach what I called level V). Or maybe to some other job that's a bit more than database architect, even if it doesn't combine all those other things?

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:43:46 GMT

[quote][b]quackhandle1975 (3/16/2011)[/b][hr]Very well written article, even someone of 10+ years experience its nice to read something and think, I haven't touched on that area of SQL for a while (or even not at all) maybe I should go and read up and see what's new.[i][b]qh[/b][/i][/quote]Thanks for the kind words, qh.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

quackhandle1975 — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 07:39:11 GMT

Very well written article, even someone of 10+ years experience its nice to read something and think, I haven't touched on that area of SQL for a while (or even not at all) maybe I should go and read up and see what's new.[i][b]qh[/b][/i]

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

jleong-1126772 — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 11:42:55 GMT

I loved the article. If only I've read something like this sooner, I wouldn't be in the situation I'm in. Oh well, at least I know what to go for and work on. :-DThank you for this article.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

WayneS — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:17:00 GMT

[quote][b]FargoUT (12/10/2010)[/b][hr]This was an excellent article! I even forwarded it on to the manager of a company who was asking me for help in determining what sort of skill requirements someone should have so he could screen out potential applicants.[/quote]Craig, an accolade better than this just doesn't exist!Excellent article!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:04:26 GMT

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:04:03 GMT

[quote][b]Grumpy DBA (12/10/2010)[/b][hr]Great article, Craig!Not only did I enjoy the content of the article I applaud your writing style - clear, concise, well organized. Looking forward to more articles.[/quote]Thank you for that. I must admit Steve Jones helped me out with making sure my rambling stayed where it was supposed to... in my head. :-D

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

FargoUT — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:30:43 GMT

This was an excellent article! I even forwarded it on to the manager of a company who was asking me for help in determining what sort of skill requirements someone should have so he could screen out potential applicants.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Grumpy DBA — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:24:00 GMT

Great article, Craig!Not only did I enjoy the content of the article I applaud your writing style - clear, concise, well organized. Looking forward to more articles.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:56:42 GMT

[quote][b]CirquedeSQLeil (12/10/2010)[/b][hr]Thanks for the article Craig. One note is that too many times people read DBA or Database Developer and pigeon hole a candidate into being exclusively a production dba or development dba. Many times a DBA is a combination of all of the jobs. :-D[/quote]I'd agree in reality this is true. It's also far too much for a Junior to be able to handle. One thing I can hope this article will start to do is get people thinking about removing that generic name and making DBA mean what it's supposed to, rather then the catch-all.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

SQLRNNR — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 11:00:48 GMT

Thanks for the article Craig. One note is that too many times people read DBA or Database Developer and pigeon hole a candidate into being exclusively a production dba or development dba. Many times a DBA is a combination of all of the jobs. :-D

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

jasona.work — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:14:56 GMT

I currently fall into a similar situation at my employer. I learned the hard way, that I am not a "manager" or "supervisor" sort of person, I just don't have the skillset to motivate people, nor am I able to be the sort of person that "frightens" employees into doing the work needed (which is a bad way to do this, but that's beyond the point.)But, I am the person at my job who everyone comes to when they can't find the answer. I am the office "geek" who if I don't know, can often either find the answer quickly, or make the call that it's something that another person in the office might have the solution.I think my "official" job title is currently:Senior hardware tech / network & server Admin^There's that "Senior" word again!:-DDo I consider myself a LvlIII? No, not really. I'd lean more towards LvLII for many things, LvLI for a lot of SQL stuff.But, I know in general what I do and don't know, and I know where to go to try to find answers to the don't knows, and am willing to say upfront when I don't know something.Jason

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Jeff Moden — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 06:01:06 GMT

NICE! Well done, Craig! This is one of those that should be required reading... especially for recruiters, job seekers, and managers that don't have an SQL background.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Krishna Chaitanya Kilaru — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:27:48 GMT

Great article Craig!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:17:48 GMT

[quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]What about someone who's been in the industry a long time and knows a wide variety of technologies to a decent depth if not "guru" level and a good deal about how they interact, does the full lifecycle of the project and has great experience in researching how to do what she or he doesn't know? I'd consider that person senior.[/quote]You could, and that's where the line between Level II and Level III can get fuzzy. We've both been through too many interviews\shops to not know that the II/III line is usually subjective.But my case here wasn't their knowledge as a senior, but their ability to team lead and mentor. It's an additional skillset which is why a II, even a weaker one, can be a 'senior' to a team because of the multiple job tasks actually required to perform that managing position well.An example: I worked with someone who pretty much was Celko's online personality in real life. Incredible knowledge, absolute ***, yet could make the system spin on his finger like the Globetrotters and had a lot of extra-SQL knowledge that he brought to the table as well. A definate level III.Our manager was a Level II, skillwise. He certainly hadn't done the necessary deep dives to truly understand the mechanics of the system, but he was more than competant. As you mention, he'd gone around the block a lot and had been in the industry a while. He knew lifecycles, etc etc. He also used the technical knowledge of said III as part of his team leading. He was definately the senior DBA on the team though, even though others had more knowledge and skill.I would still, however, consider him a level II in skill. Please note: I am, for most tasks, merely a level II, and a Level I in the SSAS/SSRS arena. I am well versed in most of these things as well, and do [i]not[/i] consider myself a level III except in very specific topics. However, I [i]can[/i] be a Senior DBA, and a Team Lead, and a mentor.To my understanding (and opinion, I admit), a Level III is as much about being able to do their own research as knowing there's something TO research at that depth. Also, the price for a Level III usually involves the fact that they don't need to do research on 95% of incredibly technical items. You're paying for the speed that they already know it, understand it, and can apply it with little research. This is a rare skill to have across the boards.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Stefan Krzywicki — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:50:10 GMT

[quote][b]Craig Farrell (12/9/2010)[/b][hr][quote][b]SQL Server Youngling (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]Great article!"can estimate time and personal expectations well, ..."Should this perhaps be:"can estimate time and personnel expectations well,..."?[/quote]Thank you. :-)No, I had meant it as personal. The personnel part would come into play for the [i]other[/i] senior position, the team lead. A high end technical guru is not necessarily the person you want as the lead for others. They know their own business very well, though, and can handle all of the tasks being dropped on *their* plates.Just to emphasize this: The ability to know which histogram to pull up for getting the proper statistics for a leading edge on an index while simultaneously balancing temp table statistics vs. table variable shortcuts is a deep knowledge skill. They also have a rough idea of how long it will take and what the real priority is to the server and project they're working on.It doesn't mean they have a *clue* with what to do about a gold-bricking employee in need of inspiration, someone needing significant and patient mentoring, or project management skills such as keeping happy the person who's task is important to those 3 ppl in their department who have to wait on 4 company wide projects first. There is a very significant difference between a Senior in knowledge, and a Senior from a team perspective. Perhaps I needed to emphasize this more. I'll know for next time. :-)Thank you for that feedback, as well.[/quote]What about someone who's been in the industry a long time and knows a wide variety of technologies to a decent depth if not "guru" level and a good deal about how they interact, does the full lifecycle of the project and has great experience in researching how to do what she or he doesn't know? I'd consider that person senior.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:13:17 GMT

[quote][b]SQL Server Youngling (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]Great article!"can estimate time and personal expectations well, ..."Should this perhaps be:"can estimate time and personnel expectations well,..."?[/quote]Thank you. :-)No, I had meant it as personal. The personnel part would come into play for the [i]other[/i] senior position, the team lead. A high end technical guru is not necessarily the person you want as the lead for others. They know their own business very well, though, and can handle all of the tasks being dropped on *their* plates.Just to emphasize this: The ability to know which histogram to pull up for getting the proper statistics for a leading edge on an index while simultaneously balancing temp table statistics vs. table variable shortcuts is a deep knowledge skill. They also have a rough idea of how long it will take and what the real priority is to the server and project they're working on.It doesn't mean they have a *clue* with what to do about a gold-bricking employee in need of inspiration, someone needing significant and patient mentoring, or project management skills such as keeping happy the person who's task is important to those 3 ppl in their department who have to wait on 4 company wide projects first. There is a very significant difference between a Senior in knowledge, and a Senior from a team perspective. Perhaps I needed to emphasize this more. I'll know for next time. :-)Thank you for that feedback, as well.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

SQL Server Youngling — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:45:36 GMT

Great article!"can estimate time and personal expectations well, ..."Should this perhaps be:"can estimate time and personnel expectations well,..."?

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:38:43 GMT

[quote][b]Stefan Krzywicki (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]As a consultant I go on many interviews and see even more job listings. Most listings include quite a bit that isn't needed for the job or understood by the people looking for someone to fill the position. For example, most seem to think SSIS/SSAS/SSRS is all of a piece. Frequently they only need one of the three, ususally SSRS or SSIS, but they almost always ask for all 3.[/quote]I agree with this. One good example is there's still a LOT of hybrid jobs out there between developer/SSRS that ignore the SSAS engine completely. The reports run directly off the data warehouses. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's really two separate concentrations getting combined... and you're losing over half the fun of the SSRS/AS combination. :-)I had expected more folks to call me out on not discussing those 'hybrid' jobs, because it's rare a shop ever wants a 'pure' anything, and certainly doesn't advertise it if they think they can also fill in a few other 'holes' while they're at it.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:35:30 GMT

[quote][b]TalkSql (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]Great article Craig,It was really put well, I now know where to focus more as a developer now and how to steer myself to the next level. I just got laid-off and applying for jobs and whenever the see the job description i get tears in my eyes. They are looking for a superman.Regards,Bala[/quote]I'm glad I could help. Hopefully you won't be in the hunt for the next logical article after this one (the job hunt), but I wish you luck! This article was primarily written for you and those of your ilk, looking for what to concentrate on to get themselves in the door and having a solid discussion of value trade.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:24:30 GMT

[quote][b]casinc815 (12/9/2010)[/b][hr]It does appear to be a trend to try to wrap two or three people into one job description only to spin their wheels looking for the elusive superman![/quote]Sad but true, but I actually believe a lot of that is shopping, too. They know what they need and will concentrate a job to that, but if you can pull in someone who hasn't bounced around the industry from contract to contract for the last 10 years (and thus know the market) and just wants a change, and going from $50k/yr to $65k/yr is a huge jump to them, but they're worth 100k+.... 'eh.Everyone wants to get 'the best they can for their dollar'. The only way to get that sometimes is to write up a job description that shoots for the moon, and during the interview process pick your best fit, with as many extras, for the lowest price.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:18:02 GMT

:blush: First, thank you all for your kind words. I came on ~1/2AM my time out of perverse curiousity and must admit, I was worried. It had 600 reads, 3 stars, and no dialogue to tell me why. :hehe:I'm glad you're all finding it useful. I wanted to put it together primarily as a starting point for new people, but I'm hoping that it may help interviewers and recruiters along the way figure out what they actually need. They could save money, juniors and low mids could get jobs, and everyone ends up in a better position.Thank you again. No worries, the second one won't be tooo far off. :-D

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

paul s-306273 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:09:50 GMT

Good article Craig.If you apply where I work you don't need to know anything technical - nobody of that ilk is allowed to interview!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Stefan Krzywicki — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:07:07 GMT

[quote][b]Craig Farrell (12/8/2010)[/b][hr]Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]<A HREF="/articles/Career/71608/">Getting Started in SQL Server</A>[/B][/quote]Nice article.As a consultant I go on many interviews and see even more job listings. Most listings include quite a bit that isn't needed for the job or understood by the people looking for someone to fill the position. For example, most seem to think SSIS/SSAS/SSRS is all of a piece. Frequently they only need one of the three, ususally SSRS or SSIS, but they almost always ask for all 3.Additionally, I've found a good way to advance one's skill set is to constantly go for jobs you're [i]almost[/i] qualified for, but are confident you can grow into. It keeps things interesting and lets you learn and grow on the job.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

zenrigar — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 09:03:10 GMT

Great Article CraigThis helps a lot seeing from a wide view what really i enjoy regarding databases.Keep up the good work!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

TalkSql — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:49:05 GMT

Great article Craig,It was really put well, I now know where to focus more as a developer now and how to steer myself to the next level. I just got laid-off and applying for jobs and whenever the see the job description i get tears in my eyes. They are looking for a superman.Regards,Bala

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

jasona.work — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:08:59 GMT

Interesting article, it pointed out to me some areas where I need to do some work, before I can call myself a DBA...Yes, I'm a novice at this, despite doing some basic DBA stuff for my employer (hardware stuff, installing SQL, Windows networking / security / Active Directory) there are things I don't know how to do (create a view, stored procedures) and some I can do if I keep Google handy (basic queries, backups)Thanks!Jason

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

cy-dba — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:16:41 GMT

Very nice article. This validates much of what I had in my head already, but not nearly as organized!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

sjimmo — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:54:32 GMT

Craig,Excellent article. Can't wait to see the next one.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

casinc815 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:37:21 GMT

Well Done, Craig! As a Data Architect, I liked your definition and would forward your article to all the HR, brokers, and recruiters who don't want to put a little effort into the hiring process with their clients and search for the "best of the best." It does appear to be a trend to try to wrap two or three people into one job description only to spin their wheels looking for the elusive superman!...and life continues!Good luck!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

rmechaber — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:19:50 GMT

*Puts hand up from back of room*[code="sql"]CREATE TABLE #PartsOfSpeech ( WordType VARCHAR(30), Definition VARCHAR(200), Example VARCHAR(1000), Notes VARCHAR(1000) );GOINSERT INTO #PartsOfSpeech (WordType, Definition, Example, Notes)VALUES ( 'Gerund', 'A verb used as a noun.', 'Replying to SQL Server Central articles is lots of fun!!', 'The word "replying" in the example, although a verb, is the subject of the sentence and used as a noun.' );SELECT *FROM #PartsOfSpeech;DROP TABLE #PartsOfSpeech; [/code]*Puts hand down and ducks pork chops*:w00t:Rich

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

jcrawf02 — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:12:19 GMT

Great stuff Craig, thanks for this!

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Grant Fritchey — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 06:05:49 GMT

Holy crud. This is excellent stuff! Well done. I don't think I've seen it all put together quite so succinctly. Thanks.

RE: Getting Started in SQL Server

Geoff A — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 05:15:55 GMT

nice article Craig. one litttle thing you left out though;you have to really enjoy working with the technology. as Confucius said, "Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life."that is really something that I feel is extremely important. i have to love this non-sense to answer pages at 2 am, apply hot fixes on Sunday mornings and listen to devs complain they need sysadmin access..... the list goes on and on...but, for some strange reason, i love it.

Getting Started in SQL Server

Evil Kraig F — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:03:16 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Getting Started in SQL Server[/B]