Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase 12»»

Documenting the Undocumented Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, June 25, 2012 9:44 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Documenting the Undocumented






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1320990
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 6:52 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:58 AM
Points: 13,872, Visits: 9,600
Agreed. This isn't a video game, where undocumented "easter eggs" are fun to discover. It's supposed to be an enterprise-level toolkit for managing data.

Imagine if you bought a toolkit from, for example, Sears, and it had some tools in it that you had never seen before. So you ask them what the tools are and how to use them, and the answer given is, "those are undocumented by design". The reaction? ... Yeah.

Now imagine that periodically, those tools automatically do things inside your toolkit. You don't know what, and are told to bug off if you ask the manufacturer. Kind of creepy, right? I mean, you could probably use that in some sort of C-grade horror flick (filmed on a WalMart video camera that has buttons on it that the manual tells you are "undocumented, use at own risk").

So, yeah, document this stuff. That's my take on it.


- 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
Post #1321198
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:02 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:04 PM
Points: 1,639, Visits: 1,987
GSquared (6/26/2012)
Imagine if you bought a toolkit from, for example, Sears, and it had some tools in it that you had never seen before. So you ask them what the tools are and how to use them, and the answer given is, "those are undocumented by design". The reaction? ... Yeah.


I think a better comparison are appliances where you start opening it and see something that says, "No user serviceable parts inside." You should be able to do pretty much anything you need to without cracking into that. However, there are going to be times that someone with extra training is needed to fix the appliance.

The more that's documented the more that we can reliably do ourselves so I am in favor of documentation. However, I understand the hesitation to put all the time into documenting DBCC page when they could be working on new features that are going to be used more frequently.
Post #1321253
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:34 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 8:40 AM
Points: 2,923, Visits: 1,875
Sounds reasonable in theory but there are some undocumented commands that have been around since the year dot. sp_msforeachdb being a case in point.

Perhaps in the old days not documenting stuff on an ROI basis had some validity but in the collaborative world who says that the documentation has to be written by central group?

At the moment there are all sorts of articles out there on how to use the undocumented commands but why not have a community contribution resource so the workload shifts from being "write documentation casting pearls before swine" to "verify documentation from the truffles that have been unearthed".

I think it is valid to have a documentation category that emphasises that the commands are for diagnostic and testing purposes and (while written by professionals) may contain nuts bugs.

The other thing I have to mention is that there is a M$ course which goes down deep into the SQL Internals and discusses how to interpret DBCC PAGE and others. I was one of five DBAs who came out of that course on day one feeling humbled and the colour of stupid worrying about the remaining 4 days on the course. To some extent these commands have been documented but the info isn't on general release.


LinkedIn Profile
Newbie on www.simple-talk.com
Post #1321274
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:39 AM


SSCarpal Tunnel

SSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal TunnelSSCarpal Tunnel

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 24, 2014 12:43 PM
Points: 4,126, Visits: 3,428
In my experience, undocumented features are started as temporary solution that we "will visit and design correctly in the next release." If the "temporary" solution works, that never happens; however, the feature is already marked as "temporary" and "undocumented" and that is never revisited.
Post #1321338
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:44 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 4:40 PM
Points: 2,505, Visits: 1,589
I have to split hairs just a little on this one. If the undocumented feature can be run stand-alone that is one thing. But if it is something that is always intended to be used by the product internally or only used in certain instances and certain ways, that is another.

In the toolbox analogy if there are tools in the toolbox I agree the "users manual" should explain those tools. However if inside one of the electric tools in the toolbox there is a special mechanism that is unique to that tool and used only by that tool, it is undocumented and "under the hood". Just because someone could take that unit out of the electric tool and use it for something else does not mean that the maker of the toolbox is required to write documentation on it. The person taking the mechanism out of the electric tool assumes their own risk if they use the tool for what it is not intended to do.

But again if the tool is exposed stand-alone undocumented that seems odd and should be addressed.


Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
Post #1321344
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 3:56 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 7:18 PM
Points: 35,780, Visits: 32,452
Although I'd love to see them document some of the currently undocumented stuff, what I'd really like to see them do is get the current documentation right and to spend some time fixing garbage functions like PIVOT which seriously falls into the "Nice try but you missed" category.

--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #1321596
Posted Tuesday, June 26, 2012 4:51 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:52 AM
Points: 5, Visits: 136
I gave up on the undocumented extended stored procedures when a service pack broke the one that deletes backup files older than x and every maintenance plan based on the wizard started filling up hard drives. I use an ActiveX script to do tasks like that now. It's not pretty but it's mine and it works. It only breaks when the ActiveX subsystem does, and I hear about that right away.

I also don't like the thinly-veiled threat that the procedures may vanish in a future release of SQL Server. I suppose that is to scare off DBAs that might be rogue enough to call them without summoning the wizard.

It is nearly trivial to write T-SQL for making a transaction log backup of every database that isn't tempdb or set to simple recovery model. I call a stored procedure for those backups from a T-SQL maintenance plan task and it has three advantages over the wizard: 1) It doesn't try to log back up anything in the simple recovery model; 2) It picks up new databases so the maintenance plan does not have to be edited; 3) When the Cowboys in my environment who are too busy to let their DBA know there is a new database in an instance, and it is for x, and it needs to be cared for y, the failed transaction log backup within the next 4 or 6 hours lets me know someone is up to something...assuming the Cowboy isn't aware of the need to make a full backup of a new database (usually a safe assumption)...someone I will have a chat with soon.
Post #1321618
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:34 AM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2014 9:58 AM
Points: 13,872, Visits: 9,600
cfradenburg (6/26/2012)
GSquared (6/26/2012)
Imagine if you bought a toolkit from, for example, Sears, and it had some tools in it that you had never seen before. So you ask them what the tools are and how to use them, and the answer given is, "those are undocumented by design". The reaction? ... Yeah.


I think a better comparison are appliances where you start opening it and see something that says, "No user serviceable parts inside." You should be able to do pretty much anything you need to without cracking into that. However, there are going to be times that someone with extra training is needed to fix the appliance.

The more that's documented the more that we can reliably do ourselves so I am in favor of documentation. However, I understand the hesitation to put all the time into documenting DBCC page when they could be working on new features that are going to be used more frequently.


There's a big difference between telling a user "don't try to service your TV yourself, there are parts in there that can kill you, and you don't know which ones they are", and telling professional DBAs, "we can't be bothered to tell you how that works".

You know the TV ads and such that have the warning on them, "Professional driver on closed course"? Well, we are the professional drivers. And the pro mechanic team. And many of us are highly trained engineers on the exact subject at hand.

So I don't see it as comparable to "no user servicable parts".


- 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
Post #1321829
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2012 6:53 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:04 PM
Points: 1,639, Visits: 1,987
GSquared (6/27/2012)
[quote]There's a big difference between telling a user "don't try to service your TV yourself, there are parts in there that can kill you, and you don't know which ones they are", and telling professional DBAs, "we can't be bothered to tell you how that works".

You know the TV ads and such that have the warning on them, "Professional driver on closed course"? Well, we are the professional drivers. And the pro mechanic team. And many of us are highly trained engineers on the exact subject at hand.

So I don't see it as comparable to "no user servicable parts".


And I don't see us as the end user of the appliance. I see us as the repair guy who knows what they're doing but doesn't have access to every schematic of every TV.
Post #1321838
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse