6 ms·

I would definitely NOT put any level of SQL Server of my resume, but I'm actually pretty comfortable with writing/optimising queries, stored procs and cursors,

I would definitely NOT put any level of SQL Server of my resume, but I'm actually pretty comfortable with writing/optimising queries, stored procs and cursors, and some very simple administrative tasks (as a PM, day to day tasks don't necessarily involve dealing with SQL Server all the time - if they did, then something's badly wrong somewhere...) I hope this doesn't sound like tooting my own horn, but the lead-up is to this: there's a link in there that should be a submission by itself: http://www.midnightdba.com/DBARant/?p=443 http://www.midnightdba.com/DBARant/?p=443 That interview experience is horrifying. I've done only a couple of interviews, and they've been on the business side of things, so could someone shed some light on the following: 1) Are there really people who claim SQL Server 'expertise' and then not know things like the difference between DELETE and TRUNCATE? 2) If above is true, then am I short-selling myself by not putting SQL Server in my resume?!

mgkimsal 15y ago
1) yes. but not just sql server - mysql as well. probably postgresql, oracle and others too. 2) that depends on what you want to do. if you want to get more work doing sql server work, put it on the resume. there's things I've taken off my resume simply because I don't want to do work involving that tech anymore, not because I'm not capable or don't want people to know. In person, I'll tell them if they ask. re: #1 - people lie on their resumes all the time. people also exaggerate the truth a lot. lastly, some people really do honestly think they "know" a technology if the icon is on their desktop and they've clicked it a few times while working at company X. they may not really even know that they don't know anything substantial about tech X.
dspillett 15y ago
> 1) Are there really people who claim SQL Server 'expertise' and then not know things like the difference between DELETE and TRUNCATE? Yes, but this isn't specifically a SQL Server thing. People will often inflate their skills ridiculously on their CV, sometimes just telling bare faced lies. I once had to deal with an idiot who despite his CV listing him as knowing Javascript to an "advanced" level and jQuery specifically at an "intermediate" level, did not understand what $(<function>); did and was no wiser when we took out all the shortcuts to produce jQuery(document).ready(<function>); I wish I was jesting or exaggerating here. You should have seen the vacant look on his face when we tried to explain a very simple closure. Advanced indeed... > 2) If above is true, then am I short-selling myself by not putting SQL Server in my resume?! Possibly. If you understand all the basics covered in that document and have actually used them (rather than just having read about them) then yes. But be very careful to stay aware that knowledge does not necessarily imply experience (nor vice versa) - chose your wording carefully to put yourself in the best light you can without bending the truth (or seeming like you are trying to) implausibly. Claiming expertise is another step forward: if you say you are an expert that sets the level of expectation very high - you will be expected to have an excellent level of both practical and theoretical knowledge (the how and the why) and a lot of experience to back this up. If you ever claim to be an expert be quite explicit what you are an expert in. If your expertise is in the DBA side of things or from a programmers perspective (to give two generic examples) say so - databases cover a large area of subject matter and you can command a high price if you are truly an expert in the lot! Basically out on your CV the level that you would be comfortable being asked questions about. If you have some experience or knowledge of SQL Server then by all means say so but try not to exaggerate. If you have experience with SQL based RDBMSs other than SQL server then put that instead (as the basics and some of the not-so-basics are very much transferable) but don't claim SQL Server specific experience unless that is what you actually have.
- dpcx 15y ago
  > You should have seen the vacant look on his face when we tried to explain a very simple closure. Advanced indeed... Being able to describe a closure is only valid if you've had reason to use them before. Sure, use of jQuery pretty much implies use of closures, but in general, lack of specific knowledge within a domain does not imply lack of knowledge in the domain.
  - jeltz 15y ago
    I would say any real use of JavaScript does imply use of closures. For example most frameworks and any use of AJAX requires them to be used.
  - dspillett 15y ago
    A fair point: you can get by without them completely for many tasks, or with them but not actually knowing you are using them (and/or what to call them) because you've not needed to understand the implications in detail (i.e. you might pass out an inner function and merrily call it, or hand a function that uses state outside its internal scope to some library, without knowing that these are closures). But to not be able to grasp it at all when explained (he wasn't being asked to describe them from his own understanding), definitely marks "javascript: advanced" as an exaggeration far too far IMO. To be honest I wasn't being really fair with the closure thing. I should have not proceeded as we'd already left his safety zone long before that point. Anonymous functions were alien to him, and I'm not sure he was even comfortable with the idea of functions being entities that you could pass around at all (i.e. do anything with other than define and call). To put is simply: I considered his level of knowledge/experience to be no better than basic, perhaps not even that, unless you count having copied and pasted some more advanced code samples, and his CV claimed "advanced". And not recognising jQuery(document).ready() or any of its shorter equivalents made his level of anything with jQuery "none" rather than "intermediate" claimed (making that an flat out lie instead of just a gross exaggeration).
arethuza 15y ago
From what I've seen of applicant CVs recently it is now traditional to include a page made up of nothing but a long list of acronyms - presumably to ensure as many hits as possible from recruiter searches. The inclusion of items in this list is often "acronyms I can spell" or "software I have been in the same building as". I don't know if recruiters actually encourage this approach - it wouldn't surprise me if they did.
- eftpotrm 15y ago
  They seem to, unfortunately. I know MS SQL Server a little better (ahem) than the individuals who inspired this post and have years of use and multiple versions of it on my CV. Yet I was still asked to specify that it included stored procedures and UDFs. At a former job we could reject 80-90% of candidates for a heavy SQL Server + VB6 position on the grounds they couldn't write a SELECT with an INNER JOIN in it. But really, in all honesty, if I interviewed you and found you weren't properly familiar with stored procedures and UDFs, I wouldn't let you near my database. If you don't know them why should I expect you understand (say) nulls, join types, collations, locking, avoiding RBAR, use of tally tables..... Come for a trainee post, sure, but nothing that assumes experience.
  - matwood 15y ago
    At a former job we could reject 80-90% of candidates for a heavy SQL Server + VB6 position on the grounds they couldn't write a SELECT with an INNER JOIN in it. It is scary. I interview people for MSSQL positions and have seen way too many 'expert MSSQL' people who can't write a simple inner join much less anything with some sort of outer join. IMHO, if someone is going to put MSSQL server on their resume they also better be familiar with MSAS, SSIS, DTS, etc... Even if they don't know details they better know that they exists and what they are used for. BTW, UDFs are great in theory in MSSQL but horrible in practice unless constructed just right. Scalar UDFs will lock in the query into a single threaded mode and destroy performance. So only use table value UDFs without return clauses :)
    - eftpotrm 15y ago
narag 15y ago
I feel qualified to work with SQL Server (not for a DBA position though) and didn't know the answers to half the questions. I've never seen truncate, two types of UDF or cursors... I believe that the thing that infuriates the interviewer is not ignorance, but the unlimited interviewee's confidence in making up the answers with "logic". If I don't know what truncate is, I just say so. Also I do know what a clustered index is, the difference between triggers and SPs, or the select into thing. So there wouldn't be so extreme a difference between knowledge and answering impudence.
orbitingpluto 15y ago
I feel that my SQL skills are woefully inadequate. That however is probably one of the best traits of anyone allowed to play with a live database! I'm not ashamed to say that --i-am-a-dummy. All that fake bravado may get someone hired, but eventually he or she just ends up as an object lesson on a blog somewhere.

mgkimsal 15y ago

1) yes. but not just sql server - mysql as well. probably postgresql, oracle and others too. 2) that depends on what you want to do. if you want to get more work doing sql server work, put it on the resume. there's things I've taken off my resume simply because I don't want to do work involving that tech anymore, not because I'm not capable or don't want people to know. In person, I'll tell them if they ask. re: #1 - people lie on their resumes all the time. people also exaggerate the truth a lot. lastly, some people really do honestly think they "know" a technology if the icon is on their desktop and they've clicked it a few times while working at company X. they may not really even know that they don't know anything substantial about tech X.

dspillett 15y ago

> 1) Are there really people who claim SQL Server 'expertise' and then not know things like the difference between DELETE and TRUNCATE? Yes, but this isn't specifically a SQL Server thing. People will often inflate their skills ridiculously on their CV, sometimes just telling bare faced lies. I once had to deal with an idiot who despite his CV listing him as knowing Javascript to an "advanced" level and jQuery specifically at an "intermediate" level, did not understand what $(<function>); did and was no wiser when we took out all the shortcuts to produce jQuery(document).ready(<function>); I wish I was jesting or exaggerating here. You should have seen the vacant look on his face when we tried to explain a very simple closure. Advanced indeed... > 2) If above is true, then am I short-selling myself by not putting SQL Server in my resume?! Possibly. If you understand all the basics covered in that document and have actually used them (rather than just having read about them) then yes. But be very careful to stay aware that knowledge does not necessarily imply experience (nor vice versa) - chose your wording carefully to put yourself in the best light you can without bending the truth (or seeming like you are trying to) implausibly. Claiming expertise is another step forward: if you say you are an expert that sets the level of expectation very high - you will be expected to have an excellent level of both practical and theoretical knowledge (the how and the why) and a lot of experience to back this up. If you ever claim to be an expert be quite explicit what you are an expert in. If your expertise is in the DBA side of things or from a programmers perspective (to give two generic examples) say so - databases cover a large area of subject matter and you can command a high price if you are truly an expert in the lot! Basically out on your CV the level that you would be comfortable being asked questions about. If you have some experience or knowledge of SQL Server then by all means say so but try not to exaggerate. If you have experience with SQL based RDBMSs other than SQL server then put that instead (as the basics and some of the not-so-basics are very much transferable) but don't claim SQL Server specific experience unless that is what you actually have.

dpcx 15y ago
> You should have seen the vacant look on his face when we tried to explain a very simple closure. Advanced indeed... Being able to describe a closure is only valid if you've had reason to use them before. Sure, use of jQuery pretty much implies use of closures, but in general, lack of specific knowledge within a domain does not imply lack of knowledge in the domain.
- jeltz 15y ago
  I would say any real use of JavaScript does imply use of closures. For example most frameworks and any use of AJAX requires them to be used.
- dspillett 15y ago
  A fair point: you can get by without them completely for many tasks, or with them but not actually knowing you are using them (and/or what to call them) because you've not needed to understand the implications in detail (i.e. you might pass out an inner function and merrily call it, or hand a function that uses state outside its internal scope to some library, without knowing that these are closures). But to not be able to grasp it at all when explained (he wasn't being asked to describe them from his own understanding), definitely marks "javascript: advanced" as an exaggeration far too far IMO. To be honest I wasn't being really fair with the closure thing. I should have not proceeded as we'd already left his safety zone long before that point. Anonymous functions were alien to him, and I'm not sure he was even comfortable with the idea of functions being entities that you could pass around at all (i.e. do anything with other than define and call). To put is simply: I considered his level of knowledge/experience to be no better than basic, perhaps not even that, unless you count having copied and pasted some more advanced code samples, and his CV claimed "advanced". And not recognising jQuery(document).ready() or any of its shorter equivalents made his level of anything with jQuery "none" rather than "intermediate" claimed (making that an flat out lie instead of just a gross exaggeration).

arethuza 15y ago

From what I've seen of applicant CVs recently it is now traditional to include a page made up of nothing but a long list of acronyms - presumably to ensure as many hits as possible from recruiter searches. The inclusion of items in this list is often "acronyms I can spell" or "software I have been in the same building as". I don't know if recruiters actually encourage this approach - it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

eftpotrm 15y ago
They seem to, unfortunately. I know MS SQL Server a little better (ahem) than the individuals who inspired this post and have years of use and multiple versions of it on my CV. Yet I was still asked to specify that it included stored procedures and UDFs. At a former job we could reject 80-90% of candidates for a heavy SQL Server + VB6 position on the grounds they couldn't write a SELECT with an INNER JOIN in it. But really, in all honesty, if I interviewed you and found you weren't properly familiar with stored procedures and UDFs, I wouldn't let you near my database. If you don't know them why should I expect you understand (say) nulls, join types, collations, locking, avoiding RBAR, use of tally tables..... Come for a trainee post, sure, but nothing that assumes experience.
- matwood 15y ago
  At a former job we could reject 80-90% of candidates for a heavy SQL Server + VB6 position on the grounds they couldn't write a SELECT with an INNER JOIN in it. It is scary. I interview people for MSSQL positions and have seen way too many 'expert MSSQL' people who can't write a simple inner join much less anything with some sort of outer join. IMHO, if someone is going to put MSSQL server on their resume they also better be familiar with MSAS, SSIS, DTS, etc... Even if they don't know details they better know that they exists and what they are used for. BTW, UDFs are great in theory in MSSQL but horrible in practice unless constructed just right. Scalar UDFs will lock in the query into a single threaded mode and destroy performance. So only use table value UDFs without return clauses :)
  - eftpotrm 15y ago

narag 15y ago

I feel qualified to work with SQL Server (not for a DBA position though) and didn't know the answers to half the questions. I've never seen truncate, two types of UDF or cursors... I believe that the thing that infuriates the interviewer is not ignorance, but the unlimited interviewee's confidence in making up the answers with "logic". If I don't know what truncate is, I just say so. Also I do know what a clustered index is, the difference between triggers and SPs, or the select into thing. So there wouldn't be so extreme a difference between knowledge and answering impudence.

orbitingpluto 15y ago

I feel that my SQL skills are woefully inadequate. That however is probably one of the best traits of anyone allowed to play with a live database! I'm not ashamed to say that --i-am-a-dummy. All that fake bravado may get someone hired, but eventually he or she just ends up as an object lesson on a blog somewhere.