4 ms·

My career predates relational/SQL databases so I can confirm what you wrote. When Oracle came out the buzz was that a whole bunch of programmers would go away b

My career predates relational/SQL databases so I can confirm what you wrote. When Oracle came out the buzz was that a whole bunch of programmers would go away because managers and executives could write queries in a “natural” English-like language. That never happened. SQL is hard to master, but it’s the easy part of understanding the relational model and any particular schema. Instead Oracle and the other RDBMSs that followed created more jobs for programmers and database analysts and admins.

411111111111111 4y ago
Mine doesn't predate it but it's very confusing for me to read this opinion. From my point of view, it totally did happen? Can you imagine how many programmers the company would've needed to get all the data a business analyst casually queries per day? What you're looking at is the quantity of people actually employed in the industry, not how many SQL made obsolete. The industry just grew so much that it didn't become an issue.
- lozenge 4y ago
  The industry grew because the desire for data analysis grew, which is because the technology's ability to meet the desire grew. This can repeat itself a couple more times.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Cotton gins and the Jevons effect. Give what even pessimistic AI alignment people are saying, I think you're correct that there are a few more repeats possible before AGI. (Whether the pessimists are correct that all of them will happen before the 30s, I cannot say).
- gregjor 4y ago
  A few things happened. Relational databases enabled more new development, larger databases, interoperability, all of which needed programmers. With more flexibility in the database companies could collect, store, and use more data. And that data had to get into the DBMS somehow: more code. Setting up and managing databases required DBAs, a role often filled by programmers in smaller companies, and still filled by programmers today. And only larger companies had business analysts. In smaller companies programmers or maybe technically-proficient managers did that work. Anyone who had devoted their career solely to building bespoke database systems had to pivot or walk in the late ‘80s, but very few programmers only did that — it was part of the larger application development. If you were good enough to write robust database code pre-Oracle you had plenty of options. In the ‘80s when RDBMSs started to take over I worked in enterprise logistics. Oracle created jobs at the places I worked, and no programmers had to leave because we got a better tool. I’ve worked in large and small organizations for 40+ years. I’ve never worked with a manager or analyst who could write SQL more complex than “SELECT * FROM orders WHERE total > 10000.” I’m sure they exist, but not in career-threatening numbers.
  - visarga 4y ago
    AI impact will be the same - simplify here and there, but expand the scope and total amount of work because we will be doing so many more things.
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    In my department I recruited DBAs as recent as last month and this is a permanent position filled by a team of several people that do just DBA work. I saw developers ("programmers") try to do this work in some small companies or in areas where the databases were small (hundreds of MB, a few GB), but I did not see that when the databases exceed 100 GB or when there are dozens of production SQL servers that need to run 24x7. Solutions are implemented based on needs.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      Big companies have DBAs. Small companies don’t, the programmers do it or they outsource to someone like me. Maybe ChatGPT will get good at designing relational database schemas, who knows?
- aflag 4y ago
  You're considering that every company that needs SQL today would hire enough developers to essentially write most of it from scratch. While some might, most companies that use SQL would not exist, because the cost of developing their product would be prohibitive.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    Maybe. Before Oracle (mid-80s) every company did write their own database code. I think a lot of smaller companies would struggle if that was still a requirement, but if relational/SQL had not come along we’d have something else like it.
    - aflag 4y ago
      That's exactly my point, though. In the mid 80s there were a lot fewer companies producing software. Nowadays we have many more. Indeed SQL was not the only local maxima we could have gone for, but the point is that having an easy to use database with a powerful query language did not reduce the number of jobs, but instead increased it. Instead of a few companies hiring a lot of developers, we have a lot of companies hiring a few. The latter will usually mean more jobs.
      - gregjor 4y ago
        I think plummeting prices for hardware since the 1980s drove that, not relational databases.
        aflag 4y ago
        If hardware was cheaper, but writing software required an army of developers to do it, the costs would still be too great. If you read carefully, my point isn't that SQL was the cause of the tech boom, but rather that SQL and other technologies that make developers more productive didn't really take jobs away, because the market for tech would be smaller if you needed too many developers to do anything. Imagine if every little web startup writing a custom CRUD for their business needs needed to write a new bespoke database. It simply would not be feasible or they'd need some crazy funding.
- lr4444lr 4y ago
  Or they just did less. Productivity gains make people expect more, not just make what they expect now easier.
rvba 4y ago
As someone trying to learn SQL it feels that there are much more steps: * language syntax * the relational model (relatively easy? It is just "there"?) * database schema, where I have 3 000 tables, or 50 0000 tables (that's how ERPs are made) * actualy knowing how to use the language * building those queries that join columns from 15 different tables together to deliver the needed data -> it sounds easy, but Im struggling to do it better/faster - I never saw a book or website that focuses on that (multiple joins from multiple tables), when it feels my work is is mostly that * understanding what is needed * actual "programming" problems (say: you have 100k items on stock, those are parts of BOMs, make a list of 'where used'... yes I know you can google it and try to copy from stockoverflow) Seriously, I am trying now how to learn how to setup a simple DB to consolidate data (20 csv files on a shareddrive) and the guides are often like in the 'how to draw an owl' meme... Controlling/reporting/analyst jobs feel in some way as "programmer" but without tools/training/salary - just figuring stuff on your own. Im doing it, but apart from that SQLzoo website I didnt manage to find any decent guide for the 'usual' problems. Also since those are like 10% of my work I cant focus on those problems properly - and try to learn it after work. Also SQLzoo is a lot like the "how to draw the owl" meme.. the easy tasks are easy, the hard ones are impossible and there are no medium tasks. There also dont seem to ne any real life examples like those tasks like: 'join 15 tables to make some report'.
- gregjor 4y ago
  At some point you have to learn the relational model. And you have to make the mental switch to understand SQL as a declarative language, not an imperative language. I recommend Chris (C.J.) Date’s books.
- Ancapistani 4y ago
  Shoot me an email, I’d be more than willing to pair with you. I’ve been a “software engineer” of some flavor for about twenty years now, and about five of those were spent writing SQL almost exclusively. You can reach me at nominallyanonymous-at-protonmail-dot-com. From there I’ll give you my “durable” contact info - Slack, Discord, SMS, Signal, Telegram… whatever you use regularly, basically.
- raincole 4y ago
ozim 4y ago
I would argue that it is not much harder than using Excel. But there are good reasons where you don’t want random people running sql queries on production database or having direct access to the data.
- gregjor 4y ago
  About 90% of Excel spreadsheets contain errors according to some evidence: https://www.zdnet.com/article/excel-errors-microsofts-spreadsheet-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/excel-errors-microsofts-spread... I have seen this multiple times. Got called into a corp. audit once because CFO's spreadsheet didn't match reports from database. His SUM() function was missing some rows, ZIP Codes got converted to scientific notation and he didn't know why, that kind of thing.
  - ozim 4y ago
    Seems like that’s my point making excel calculations correctly is at least as hard as doing calculations with SQL. If you get experienced db guy to do excel I bet he will do it correctly. If you get “data jockey”, whatever tool he gets it will be a mess.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      Maybe I’m misreading, but “not much harder than” implies SQL and Excel aren’t that hard to learn. “At least as hard as” implies both are similarly difficult.
      - ozim 4y ago
        I would say that yes they are similarly difficult. Getting basic queries or basic calculations in spreadsheet a person can learn in couple hours. Somewhere after that comes zone "proficient enough to shoot himself in the foot". Then there is level of excel or SQL where without months of experience you simply don't know what is happening.

411111111111111 4y ago

Mine doesn't predate it but it's very confusing for me to read this opinion. From my point of view, it totally did happen? Can you imagine how many programmers the company would've needed to get all the data a business analyst casually queries per day? What you're looking at is the quantity of people actually employed in the industry, not how many SQL made obsolete. The industry just grew so much that it didn't become an issue.

lozenge 4y ago
The industry grew because the desire for data analysis grew, which is because the technology's ability to meet the desire grew. This can repeat itself a couple more times.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Cotton gins and the Jevons effect. Give what even pessimistic AI alignment people are saying, I think you're correct that there are a few more repeats possible before AGI. (Whether the pessimists are correct that all of them will happen before the 30s, I cannot say).
gregjor 4y ago
A few things happened. Relational databases enabled more new development, larger databases, interoperability, all of which needed programmers. With more flexibility in the database companies could collect, store, and use more data. And that data had to get into the DBMS somehow: more code. Setting up and managing databases required DBAs, a role often filled by programmers in smaller companies, and still filled by programmers today. And only larger companies had business analysts. In smaller companies programmers or maybe technically-proficient managers did that work. Anyone who had devoted their career solely to building bespoke database systems had to pivot or walk in the late ‘80s, but very few programmers only did that — it was part of the larger application development. If you were good enough to write robust database code pre-Oracle you had plenty of options. In the ‘80s when RDBMSs started to take over I worked in enterprise logistics. Oracle created jobs at the places I worked, and no programmers had to leave because we got a better tool. I’ve worked in large and small organizations for 40+ years. I’ve never worked with a manager or analyst who could write SQL more complex than “SELECT * FROM orders WHERE total > 10000.” I’m sure they exist, but not in career-threatening numbers.
- visarga 4y ago
  AI impact will be the same - simplify here and there, but expand the scope and total amount of work because we will be doing so many more things.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  In my department I recruited DBAs as recent as last month and this is a permanent position filled by a team of several people that do just DBA work. I saw developers ("programmers") try to do this work in some small companies or in areas where the databases were small (hundreds of MB, a few GB), but I did not see that when the databases exceed 100 GB or when there are dozens of production SQL servers that need to run 24x7. Solutions are implemented based on needs.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    Big companies have DBAs. Small companies don’t, the programmers do it or they outsource to someone like me. Maybe ChatGPT will get good at designing relational database schemas, who knows?
aflag 4y ago
You're considering that every company that needs SQL today would hire enough developers to essentially write most of it from scratch. While some might, most companies that use SQL would not exist, because the cost of developing their product would be prohibitive.
- gregjor 4y ago
  Maybe. Before Oracle (mid-80s) every company did write their own database code. I think a lot of smaller companies would struggle if that was still a requirement, but if relational/SQL had not come along we’d have something else like it.
  - aflag 4y ago
    That's exactly my point, though. In the mid 80s there were a lot fewer companies producing software. Nowadays we have many more. Indeed SQL was not the only local maxima we could have gone for, but the point is that having an easy to use database with a powerful query language did not reduce the number of jobs, but instead increased it. Instead of a few companies hiring a lot of developers, we have a lot of companies hiring a few. The latter will usually mean more jobs.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      I think plummeting prices for hardware since the 1980s drove that, not relational databases.
      - aflag 4y ago
        If hardware was cheaper, but writing software required an army of developers to do it, the costs would still be too great. If you read carefully, my point isn't that SQL was the cause of the tech boom, but rather that SQL and other technologies that make developers more productive didn't really take jobs away, because the market for tech would be smaller if you needed too many developers to do anything. Imagine if every little web startup writing a custom CRUD for their business needs needed to write a new bespoke database. It simply would not be feasible or they'd need some crazy funding.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Or they just did less. Productivity gains make people expect more, not just make what they expect now easier.

rvba 4y ago

As someone trying to learn SQL it feels that there are much more steps: * language syntax * the relational model (relatively easy? It is just "there"?) * database schema, where I have 3 000 tables, or 50 0000 tables (that's how ERPs are made) * actualy knowing how to use the language * building those queries that join columns from 15 different tables together to deliver the needed data -> it sounds easy, but Im struggling to do it better/faster - I never saw a book or website that focuses on that (multiple joins from multiple tables), when it feels my work is is mostly that * understanding what is needed * actual "programming" problems (say: you have 100k items on stock, those are parts of BOMs, make a list of 'where used'... yes I know you can google it and try to copy from stockoverflow) Seriously, I am trying now how to learn how to setup a simple DB to consolidate data (20 csv files on a shareddrive) and the guides are often like in the 'how to draw an owl' meme... Controlling/reporting/analyst jobs feel in some way as "programmer" but without tools/training/salary - just figuring stuff on your own. Im doing it, but apart from that SQLzoo website I didnt manage to find any decent guide for the 'usual' problems. Also since those are like 10% of my work I cant focus on those problems properly - and try to learn it after work. Also SQLzoo is a lot like the "how to draw the owl" meme.. the easy tasks are easy, the hard ones are impossible and there are no medium tasks. There also dont seem to ne any real life examples like those tasks like: 'join 15 tables to make some report'.

gregjor 4y ago
At some point you have to learn the relational model. And you have to make the mental switch to understand SQL as a declarative language, not an imperative language. I recommend Chris (C.J.) Date’s books.
Ancapistani 4y ago
Shoot me an email, I’d be more than willing to pair with you. I’ve been a “software engineer” of some flavor for about twenty years now, and about five of those were spent writing SQL almost exclusively. You can reach me at nominallyanonymous-at-protonmail-dot-com. From there I’ll give you my “durable” contact info - Slack, Discord, SMS, Signal, Telegram… whatever you use regularly, basically.
raincole 4y ago

ozim 4y ago

I would argue that it is not much harder than using Excel. But there are good reasons where you don’t want random people running sql queries on production database or having direct access to the data.

gregjor 4y ago
About 90% of Excel spreadsheets contain errors according to some evidence: https://www.zdnet.com/article/excel-errors-microsofts-spreadsheet-may-be-hazardous-to-your-health/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/excel-errors-microsofts-spread... I have seen this multiple times. Got called into a corp. audit once because CFO's spreadsheet didn't match reports from database. His SUM() function was missing some rows, ZIP Codes got converted to scientific notation and he didn't know why, that kind of thing.
- ozim 4y ago
  Seems like that’s my point making excel calculations correctly is at least as hard as doing calculations with SQL. If you get experienced db guy to do excel I bet he will do it correctly. If you get “data jockey”, whatever tool he gets it will be a mess.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    Maybe I’m misreading, but “not much harder than” implies SQL and Excel aren’t that hard to learn. “At least as hard as” implies both are similarly difficult.
    - ozim 4y ago
      I would say that yes they are similarly difficult. Getting basic queries or basic calculations in spreadsheet a person can learn in couple hours. Somewhere after that comes zone "proficient enough to shoot himself in the foot". Then there is level of excel or SQL where without months of experience you simply don't know what is happening.