Is SQL 2000 hard to learn?

[AmyFlorida]

I have a very good understanding of Access 97 and 2000 in terms of data administration and forms/reports design.

How hard is SQL 2000 to learn? I would suspect with it being a Microsoft product, one could count on a lot of GUI type windows to guide you along.

 

[decem]

hard to learn as in hard to get the cert.. or hard to put into use in real life?


i hold the mcdba cert.. but in sql 7.. i forgot almost all of what i learned as i don't use it.. but it only took me about 3 months of studying/fucking with it to pass the admin and implementation and design tests..... and i had no real knowledge of anything before that.. not even excel or access..

so.. in essence.. sql is just a much more robust version of access.... and there's tons of wizards to do virtually everything..

so no.. it's not that hard to learn..



btw... you want my subscription to sql2000 mag? i don't know why the send it to me.. i just toss it in the trash..

 

[Swoleyoley]

im more of a hardware guy (mcsa) but in my opin it is very hard and takes alot of time to get used to, the DBA's i work with all look crazy

 

[AmyFlorida]

So what you are saying is that you actually learned more in the mcdba class than what you needed to know to actually run it in day to day operations?

Sounds like you were in the same boat as I am in terms of previous experience in being exposed to the product.

Is it worth pursuing the mcdba or would just getting the training in administration be enough?

 

[the nature boy]

If you can, learn Oracle.

 

[AmyFlorida]

If you can, learn Oracle.

My present employer doesn't run Oracle. So I have to settle for training under his current uses.

I hear Oracle is crazy-scarey too. Very complex and nerve wracking.

 

[Swoleyoley]

oracle is tha shiznit

 

[AmyFlorida]

Also, another bad part about Oracle is that nobody really hires an entry level Oracle person. They always want you to have 2-3 years experience. Just to get a Junior position. I do not have the IT skills to come in a lesser position and try to move up. I am trying to move up in my company here and turn that into a lateral move with another company for more $$.

 

[the nature boy]

My present employer doesn't run Oracle. So I have to settle for training under his current uses.

I hear Oracle is crazy-scarey too. Very complex and nerve wracking.

it's all good. if they want to pay for you to learn sql 2K then so be it. If you ever have the chance to learn oracle you'll have a solid foundation with the sql 2K course you're going to take.

Both sql and oracle are kinda hard, but some people have a brain for it. Not me. I know how they work and I know the architecture of both DB programs, but there's no way in hell I could create a database from scratch.

If I were you Amy Florida, I do a little reading up on sql 2000 or any database program and find out if it's something you're inerested in.

 

[Y_lifter]

Oracle is the Shiz if you can find a DBA to support it.. Especially on NT or 200 platform.
Lots and Lots of Oracle Unix DBA's out there.

Kinda like finding a good Ferrari Mechanic....

SQL is quite easy and building the Queries are like an Art form if you get good at it..

Just a heads up... Lots of SQL reserved Characters that if they make thier way into your tables will totally bamboozelate your DB..

 

[Y_lifter]

Learning another DB is like learning a foreign language..
Basics apply, just different syntax and rules...

Go for the SQL... It's becomming the poor mans alternative to Oracle since they rape you on License costs....

 

[HappyScrappy]

are you asking about being an admin on servers for these - the DBA - or are you asking how they are to actually use?
to use they are retardedly easy - esp the MS stuff - it just takes time sitting in front of it.
Oracle is easy in some respects, but more complicated than the MS, but that would make sense since it is better.
also you have to have some knowledge of a unix system which people coming from windows sometimes see as a hurdle and added complexity.

as far as creating tables, databases, querying them, reports, etc - they are all easy.

creating something useful that actually uses them - that is entirely different, but hardly the role of the DBA.

and Oracle DBA with experience makes what is known in the industry as "a buttload of money" and they do soley that.
MS SQL DBAs are usually people that know other MS stuff and can serve as more of an IT person - at least this is how I see things at the various places I have been.

 

[decem]

So what you are saying is that you actually learned more in the mcdba class than what you needed to know to actually run it in day to day operations?

Sounds like you were in the same boat as I am in terms of previous experience in being exposed to the product.

Is it worth pursuing the mcdba or would just getting the training in administration be enough?

no.. i never ran it in day to day operations.. lol.. i took the classes and got the certs... along with my mcse certs.. i took and passed either 9 or 10 ms tests...

when talking experience vs. certs.. neither one is good without the other when it comes time to get a job as a dba.. that's why i'm not one now.. sql is the same as oracle in that everyone wants 2-3 yrs experience..

if you have the opportunity at a company to get experience with sql.. fucking take it.. and gets the certs to go along with it.. then if you can hold that job for long enough to build experience with it you'll be all set..

 

[decem]

are you asking about being an admin on servers for these - the DBA - or are you asking how they are to actually use?
to use they are retardedly easy - esp the MS stuff - it just takes time sitting in front of it.
Oracle is easy in some respects, but more complicated than the MS, but that would make sense since it is better.
also you have to have some knowledge of a unix system which people coming from windows sometimes see as a hurdle and added complexity.

as far as creating tables, databases, querying them, reports, etc - they are all easy.

creating something useful that actually uses them - that is entirely different, but hardly the role of the DBA.

and Oracle DBA with experience makes what is known in the industry as "a buttload of money" and they do soley that.
MS SQL DBAs are usually people that know other MS stuff and can serve as more of an IT person - at least this is how I see things at the various places I have been.

yeah.. for the most part i'd say that oracle dba's make more than sql dba's.. but to get a job solely as a sql dba.. in a constantly changing environment.. then you to would be making the industry standard of a buttload.. but it will be a tad smaller but than an oracle butt.. but a butt by any other name is still a butt is it not? anyway.. the problem with that statement is that most orgs that have such db intensive operations are either on a mainframe or oracle system and few run sql.. not that sql can't handle the load.... that's just the perception.. (sql can actually out perform oracle in many aspects).. but many just feel safer with oracle..

 

[the nature boy]

anyway.. the problem with that statement is that most orgs that have such db intensive operations are either on a mainframe or oracle system and few run sql.. not that sql can't handle the load.... that's just the perception.. (sql can actually out perform oracle in many aspects).. but many just feel safer with oracle..

I think it has more to do that Oracle runs on more OS's and platforms than Sql does.

 

[HappyScrappy]

I used to be very against Oracle (they have a huge building right across the street from here, right next to Microsoft and Lycos) and just thought it was overhyped.
We did a lot in MS SQL and I saw that as plenty good for what we were doing. I also used mySQL a lot on my own projects and felt that was a great product, esp since it is essentially free.
Then we switched here to Oracle and HOLY SHIT... I'm not usually easily impressed - I tend to be jaded... but Oracle has impressed me.

MS has a general theory that each of their boxes that the software runs on should be the highest end PCs to get the most performance, and once you use more than what that box can handle... then throw more boxes at the problem. you have a tree within the box and forest of these trees. but in the end, you don't get that great a scalable system - not the fault of MS entirely, just how that system is gonna work.

Oracle does a similar thing - but if you have it on a unix system... well, there are some frickin amazing things you can toss them on - handles more processors and such - but in the end, you are essentially doing what MS says - just throwing more hardware on it - but it is faster b/c they are all on the same hardware backplane and you aren't dealing with network latency.

I suppose it depends on how fast you need it to be, and how much money it is worth to be that fast - also how much data you are dealing with.

for the most part, for 99% of the stuff out there, MS SQL is plenty to handle it - I haven't used it in a year, so I don't know if they have fixed the stability issues they were having with it and the Commerce Server (really more fo a fault of the CS than the SQL server).

 

[HappyScrappy]

I think it has more to do that Oracle runs on more OS's and platforms than Sql does.

Very true.

our product used to be only MS.
but the demand for it was to be on multi-platform systems.
so we switched to oracle and java on a solaris and win2k platform (and/or) and that expanded our market potential a shitload over just the MS option - esp in this industry.

the speed difference in some of the java stuff annoys me - but again, for 90% fo the stuff, it is plenty fast - I just happen to prefer cryptography and games, both of which do the stuff that java's vm isn't so fast at.

 

[Y_lifter]

So Scappy, is your Robotic EF member running off an Oracle or SQL DB for it's data tables ?

Or maybe FoxPro ??? bwahahaha

 

[Puc]

it is a decision of economics as much as anything... if you want to work for big business, go learn oracle.

that or learn rpg...

if you want to enable the little guy, go sql server.

personally, being a developer, and a big-business hater, i like sql a lot.

go .net,
Puc

 

[Y_lifter]

People are still using RPG ????

 

[HappyScrappy]

So Scappy, is your Robotic EF member running off an Oracle or SQL DB for it's data tables ?

Or maybe FoxPro ??? bwahahaha

LOL
geek humor.

the robot was just using a hash table in Perl that it would build and keep in memory and then on death save out to a file representation of that hash.
far faster than setting up a db
but if I had to, I'd just use mySQL for it since it is free and fast enough for it

 

[AAP]

I can only speak from what I see at the employee end. The board member who got me my present job is both MCBDA and OCP. He says he will never touch a microsoft database because his pay would take a sharp drop. Here at Team Health, the SQL DBA's make around $55K-$65K. This guy was making $78 per hour as an Oracle DBA. He only had 14 months experience when he started here. Not bad for someone 26 years old.

 

[Code]

select user from world_group where IQ is NULL

 

[Puc]

People are still using RPG ????

yup... i have clients who even use IBM http and rpg cgi's as a internet solution. legacy code is everywhere and will never completely die.

these discussions of what db is better reminds me of the arguments i had as a kid with my friends who owned intellivisions while i had my atari.

 

[Code]

Intellivision rocks!

Atari just had more software.