From jlawrenc1 at shaw.ca  Sun Jan  4 00:31:57 2015
From: jlawrenc1 at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 23:31:57 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Opinions invited: question about normalization
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1gA8-26Pe5ZecMCaB1-mur9WoF_N4BTFHpp=jzTyz0+Zw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1273262811.145815629.1420353117799.JavaMail.root@cds057>

Hi Arthur:

This reply may be a little late but as to your concerns I have done this type of indexing a few times. 

To start with all Ridings have a specific number and polls within the Riding are accompanied by a full legal description. A query can be written using the legal description. It can be an arduous process but once written (the 100 or so) it is probably good for many years. When complete all Riding and Poll values can be assigned.

There are ways to optimize the search algorithms but once you write a few it will become apparent. I used a drop-through resolution method which can be even faster than a full query. For example; many roads are exclusive to one Poll and if not an address range is usually definitive.

It is not a quick process all around but well worth it. Most importantly, you have to get many people doing data entry. Last time I managed a couple Ridings it took about thirty volunteers and a weeks worth or work. ;-)

Jim  

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 9:04:28 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Opinions invited: question about normalization

First of all, thanks for your inputs and suggestions. While awaiting same,
I have plogged along on my own and devised a tentative scenario.

First, some basics that describe the domain (and granted these may describe
only the Canadian version of democracy in practice).

1. We have Electoral Districts, and they exist at two levels, called
Federal and Provincial. These districts map in parallel 99% of the time.
2. Here in Canada, we have three significant political parties and a couple
of others.
3. The individual candidates tend to work on their own, They rely on a team
of Volunteers -- "fellow-travellers" willing to donate their time and
effort toward the larger cause.
4. Candidates and/or staff relegate tasks to the available Volunteers, who
may in turn be collected into Crews: a) Canvass (That means door-knocking);
Sign Crews (that means delivering signs for either window or lawn or
possibly both, and there's a further wrinkle, because there has recently
emerged in which lawn-signs in particular have been damaged, defaced or
outright destroyed, and we need to keep track of these incidences.)
5. Street Addresses are in themselves problematic. There's no simple
division between odd or even. There's no simple way to deduce the address
from a street number, but on the other hand, the list of addresses is
delivered by the government, and issues of trust aside, the "facts of real
estate" imply that since the last census was performed, several condos have
been built and inhabited, and these inhabitants are not on our immediate
Voters' List. So the app has to include a way to insert rows into our
mobile database, and upon return to HQ, upload said inserts into our HQ
database.
6. Alpha Anywhere solves all of these problems in a single stroke. That is
why I have bet my future on this technology. I ought to state this more
precisely: I have no financial interest in Alpha Software. I have never
received a penny from Alpha. I have simply viewed what the software
delivers, and in the course of numerous emails, become friends with Richard
and Selwyn. I have never met either, but I have learned that two of my role
models, Dan Bricklin and Adam Green, are working with the Alpha team, and
this makes me immensely happy.
and delegate tasks and responsibilities on an ad-hoc basis.

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Gustav Brock <gustav at cactus.dk> wrote:

> Hi Arthur
>
> I think you are mixing two very different aspects here: User interface and
> filtering method.
>
> Having multiple "and" or multiple "or" is not so difficult, but mixing
> and/or is. I don't think there's an universally perfect method, it depends
> on your application.
>
> As for your search techniques, maybe some of the new BI systems can be of
> help if you can define the volunteers' properties as dimensions.
> For a project, I found that copying the normalized data to (nearly) flat
> search tables was quite effective while keeping the "true" data in the
> original structure. This also allows for an easy (though not instantaneous)
> complete rebuild of the search tables from scratch. It was done in SQL
> Server, no fancy tools.
>
> /gustav
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:
> dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] P? vegne af Arthur Fuller
> Sendt: 27. december 2014 19:14
> Til: Peter Brawley
> Emne: [dba-SQLServer] Opinions invited: question about normalization
>
> I have in development an app that is intended for use by agencies that use
> a lot of volunteers. My initial design was fully normalized (by which I
> mean I went to 5NF not just petty 3NF), but this posed significant problems
> on the design of the FE, which is web-based. This means that attached to
> the Volunteers table are several child tables, each of which connects to a
> lookup table, and each of which child could have several rows. For example,
> consider Languages-Spoken, easy enough in itself, point to a lookup table
> listing languages, present a combo-box and that's that. But now we add
> Skills (Driver, Cook, Visits, etc.), and now just with these two lists,
> it's already complex: I need a Russian-speaking volunteer who can also
> serve as a Driver or Cook, say.
>
> That leads to complex queries that eventually involve nested Having
> predicates, and that is tough to implement in a UI that recognizes that
> most of its users are, not to cast aspersions, but let's face it, a lot of
> users in this category are going to have problems with the intricacies of
> ANDs and ORs.
>
> So I was thinking that there's another design strategy in which all the
> lookup tables are folded into a single table, with an identifier that
> describes the domain (i.e. languages spoken, skills offered, fields of
> interest, etc.), the point being that a successive number of predicates
> could be assembled from a single table, thus avoiding the complexities of
> multi-table queries.
>
> I know that this design violates virtually everything Dr. Codd has
> written, but he was after all a mere demi-god, and as problems have
> progressed and products such as NoSQL have emerged, I've begun to doubt
> propositions I formerly held absolute. Disk space is cheap, speed is
> abundant, and (well not in my particular case) databases are expanding to
> billions of rows.
>
> Any thoughts, my friends?
>
> --
> Arthur
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>
>


-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From accessd at shaw.ca  Wed Jan  7 17:49:25 2015
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 16:49:25 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Opinions invited: question about normalization
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1iMfnQqo+qLWcFC7A1MudX+0UVcR7=h_+7FiPCVeo1htg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1088297599.91316547.1420674565723.JavaMail.root@cds018>

IMHO, there are all sorts of rules and standards. When starting in the business of database understanding and following the tried and true recommendations is the only logical way to go but as you become more experienced you learn when to break the rules.

When it comes to extracting the appropriate data from a data store, as you become more experienced, rules become guidelines and not walls. Some senior database gurus use hybrids, of their own designs, to rip matching data, sql to further filter, sort and organize and then functions to assemble the final results. 

The only criteria then is accuracy and performance.

Jim     

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Peter Brawley" <peter.brawley at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2014 10:13:54 AM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Opinions invited: question about normalization

I have in development an app that is intended for use by agencies that use
a lot of volunteers. My initial design was fully normalized (by which I
mean I went to 5NF not just petty 3NF), but this posed significant problems
on the design of the FE, which is web-based. This means that attached to
the Volunteers table are several child tables, each of which connects to a
lookup table, and each of which child could have several rows. For example,
consider Languages-Spoken, easy enough in itself, point to a lookup table
listing languages, present a combo-box and that's that. But now we add
Skills (Driver, Cook, Visits, etc.), and now just with these two lists,
it's already complex: I need a Russian-speaking volunteer who can also
serve as a Driver or Cook, say.

That leads to complex queries that eventually involve nested Having
predicates, and that is tough to implement in a UI that recognizes that
most of its users are, not to cast aspersions, but let's face it, a lot of
users in this category are going to have problems with the intricacies of
ANDs and ORs.

So I was thinking that there's another design strategy in which all the
lookup tables are folded into a single table, with an identifier that
describes the domain (i.e. languages spoken, skills offered, fields of
interest, etc.), the point being that a successive number of predicates
could be assembled from a single table, thus avoiding the complexities of
multi-table queries.

I know that this design violates virtually everything Dr. Codd has written,
but he was after all a mere demi-god, and as problems have progressed and
products such as NoSQL have emerged, I've begun to doubt propositions I
formerly held absolute. Disk space is cheap, speed is abundant, and (well
not in my particular case) databases are expanding to billions of rows.

Any thoughts, my friends?

-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 12:30:02 2015
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:30:02 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1irDho60Do5Sqv=OqKV9LwQ9tKKvru0SWJsQHpnphK4Ow@mail.gmail.com>

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE*
A few things surprised me: that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo
has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

-- 
Arthur

From garykjos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 13:01:14 2015
From: garykjos at gmail.com (Gary Kjos)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 13:01:14 -0600
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1irDho60Do5Sqv=OqKV9LwQ9tKKvru0SWJsQHpnphK4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEPJO1irDho60Do5Sqv=OqKV9LwQ9tKKvru0SWJsQHpnphK4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJ2R_pJxRa6WWUKdj-m6-nBeDuvgxDKiW-dm1FOBSXQTwa=zqQ@mail.gmail.com>

Did you look at the method of ranking......  Seems kind of bogus to
me. Not by number of installations. Not by number of records managed.
 No, its by the number of mentions on websites and the number of
google searches.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of calculating the scores of the DB-Engines Ranking

The DB-Engines Ranking is a list of database management systems ranked
by their current popularity. We measure the popularity of a system by
using the following parameters:

Number of mentions of the system on websites, measured as number of
results in search engines queries. At the moment, we use Google and
Bing for this measurement. In order to count only relevant results, we
are searching for "<system name> database", e.g. "Oracle database".

General interest in the system. For this measurement, we use the
frequency of searches in Google Trends.

Frequency of technical discussions about the system. We use the number
of related questions and the number of interested users on the
well-known IT-related Q&A sites Stack Overflow and DBA Stack Exchange.

Number of job offers, in which the system is mentioned. We use the
number of offers on the leading job search engines Indeed and Simply
Hired.

Number of profiles in professional networks, in which the system is
mentioned. We use the internationally most popular professional
network LinkedIn.

Relevance in social networks. We count the number of Twitter tweets,
in which the system is mentioned.

We calculate the popularity value of a system by standardizing and
averaging of the individual parameters. These mathematical
transformations are made in a way so that the distance of the
individual systems is preserved. That means, when system A has twice
as large a value in the DB-Engines Ranking as system B, then it is
twice as popular when averaged over the individual evaluation
criteria.

The DB-Engines Ranking does not measure the number of installations of
the systems, or their use within IT systems. It can be expected, that
an increase of the popularity of a system as measured by the
DB-Engines Ranking (e.g. in discussions or job offers) precedes a
corresponding broad use of the system by a certain time factor.
Because of this, the DB-Engines Ranking can act as an early indicator.


On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com> wrote:
> *Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
> Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
> 3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
> Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE*
> A few things surprised me: that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo
> has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>



-- 
Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com

From dw-murphy at cox.net  Thu Jan 15 13:05:39 2015
From: dw-murphy at cox.net (Doug Murphy)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 11:05:39 -0800
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <gJWF1p00B0xgD8Z01JWGdE>
References: <gJWF1p00B0xgD8Z01JWGdE>
Message-ID: <00a401d030f6$40605ed0$c1211c70$@cox.net>

Access does not surprise me at all. If you go into any large organization
you will find many Access applications in daily use that were created by the
employees who had a need that couldn't be met by the enterprise system. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur
Fuller
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE* A few things surprised me:
that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo has become so popular so
quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au  Thu Jan 15 20:00:54 2015
From: darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au (Darryl Collins)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 02:00:54 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <00a401d030f6$40605ed0$c1211c70$@cox.net>
References: <gJWF1p00B0xgD8Z01JWGdE> <00a401d030f6$40605ed0$c1211c70$@cox.net>
Message-ID: <HKXPR04MB360E11448E25E483EE4A9C2FC4F0@HKXPR04MB360.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Yes... I see this all the time, everywhere.

You go via the official IT path and put in an initial "What about we try this" type of request request - the usual response is

1: it is too pissy and bespoke for real IT folks to deal with - they refuse to do it outright. Only work on 'real' projects.
2: They will do it, but it will take 10 months and cost $XXX,000+, plus ongoing maint fees.
3: The requestor has to fill out a detailed 40 page scope document for every darn change and get several different folks to sign off on it.
4: They won't build it in Access, has to be on a real platform, which is fine, but the user loses all flexibility and control and cannot customise it in anyway.

99% percent of the time folks go "WTF! - I'll do it myself" (or hire someone like me or you to do it for them).  And they do - all the time.  I know of whole essential systems of Access Databases and even Excel solutions that are used daily in major corps that are not approved or even officially exist.  But it was the only way the users could get the job done.

Cheers
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Doug Murphy
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2015 6:06 AM
To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server'
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Access does not surprise me at all. If you go into any large organization you will find many Access applications in daily use that were created by the employees who had a need that couldn't be met by the enterprise system. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE* A few things surprised me:
that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

--
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com

_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From gustav at cactus.dk  Fri Jan 16 02:15:53 2015
From: gustav at cactus.dk (Gustav Brock)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:15:53 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
Message-ID: <AM2PR06MB09138CD360B54E86DC7303F7CA4F0@AM2PR06MB0913.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Arthur and Darryl

Before we label all official IT leaders as stubborn better-knowing stupidos, let me add that I have worked on an Access project for a major business (40,000 employees) for two years.

First of all - and this is a real show stopper - Access isn't suited for team development. Even though you can get it to work to a degree with Visual SourceSafe, it can soon be a mess. 
Our team was small, one was the architect and did many queries and VBA to handle data, one did mainly reports, while I did the hard work with form navigation, larger modules, code, and query optimizing. We managed because we were very organized and typically operated in different corners, and I often during evenings and weekends. But it was much more difficult than if you work alone on a project.

The backend was SQL Server, an old mainframe, and a new SAP system. The application worked reasonable with SQL Server and the old mainframe, but when the SAP system replaced the mainframe and the amount of data grew dramatically, performance went down, and the project was put on hold.

Today I would advise against using Access for such kind of project. It takes a little more (well, a lot more) to build a user interface comparable to Access, but I'm convinced that the flexibility and options for teamwork you gain by using Visual Studio is well worth the extra work. 
Also, VBA is limited regarding event handling and even though you can use WithEvents, we chose to refrain from it because code soon gets messy. VBA isn't really on the beat, and often you sit and wish you had C# at your hands.

/gustav

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] P? vegne af Darryl Collins
Sendt: 16. januar 2015 03:01
Til: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Emne: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Yes... I see this all the time, everywhere.

You go via the official IT path and put in an initial "What about we try this" type of request request - the usual response is

1: it is too pissy and bespoke for real IT folks to deal with - they refuse to do it outright. Only work on 'real' projects.
2: They will do it, but it will take 10 months and cost $XXX,000+, plus ongoing maint fees.
3: The requestor has to fill out a detailed 40 page scope document for every darn change and get several different folks to sign off on it.
4: They won't build it in Access, has to be on a real platform, which is fine, but the user loses all flexibility and control and cannot customise it in anyway.

99% percent of the time folks go "WTF! - I'll do it myself" (or hire someone like me or you to do it for them).  And they do - all the time.  I know of whole essential systems of Access Databases and even Excel solutions that are used daily in major corps that are not approved or even officially exist.  But it was the only way the users could get the job done.

Cheers
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Doug Murphy
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2015 6:06 AM
To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server'
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Access does not surprise me at all. If you go into any large organization you will find many Access applications in daily use that were created by the employees who had a need that couldn't be met by the enterprise system. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE* A few things surprised me:
that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

--
Arthur 



From accessd at shaw.ca  Tue Jan 20 14:43:08 2015
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:43:08 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <CAEPJO1irDho60Do5Sqv=OqKV9LwQ9tKKvru0SWJsQHpnphK4Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <978169239.101983408.1421786588356.JavaMail.root@cds018>

Oracle will be in the lead for the foreseeable future, given that if money is not a major concern, its feature list,  ability to search virtually any data store; relational, hierarchical and so on and its capability to be tweaked and fine tuned, is unsurpassed. It is a techy dream. ;-)

But OTOH, much of the list is pretty static. Most companies once committed to a product tend to "stay the course" until they can not. That is why there are no real stats showing upward or downward movement among the top applications. It would be interesting to see is companies had the choice or need to chance their databases what would be their new choices?

Jim    

----- Original Message -----
From: "Arthur Fuller" <fuller.artful at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:30:02 AM
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE*
A few things surprised me: that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo
has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

-- 
Arthur
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From accessd at shaw.ca  Tue Jan 20 14:47:13 2015
From: accessd at shaw.ca (Jim Lawrence)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 13:47:13 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <CAJ2R_pJxRa6WWUKdj-m6-nBeDuvgxDKiW-dm1FOBSXQTwa=zqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1772992673.101986816.1421786833066.JavaMail.root@cds018>

Good set of comments...nothing that I would disagree with.

Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Kjos" <garykjos at gmail.com>
To: "Discussion concerning MS SQL Server" <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 11:01:14 AM
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Did you look at the method of ranking......  Seems kind of bogus to
me. Not by number of installations. Not by number of records managed.
 No, its by the number of mentions on websites and the number of
google searches.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Method of calculating the scores of the DB-Engines Ranking

The DB-Engines Ranking is a list of database management systems ranked
by their current popularity. We measure the popularity of a system by
using the following parameters:

Number of mentions of the system on websites, measured as number of
results in search engines queries. At the moment, we use Google and
Bing for this measurement. In order to count only relevant results, we
are searching for "<system name> database", e.g. "Oracle database".

General interest in the system. For this measurement, we use the
frequency of searches in Google Trends.

Frequency of technical discussions about the system. We use the number
of related questions and the number of interested users on the
well-known IT-related Q&A sites Stack Overflow and DBA Stack Exchange.

Number of job offers, in which the system is mentioned. We use the
number of offers on the leading job search engines Indeed and Simply
Hired.

Number of profiles in professional networks, in which the system is
mentioned. We use the internationally most popular professional
network LinkedIn.

Relevance in social networks. We count the number of Twitter tweets,
in which the system is mentioned.

We calculate the popularity value of a system by standardizing and
averaging of the individual parameters. These mathematical
transformations are made in a way so that the distance of the
individual systems is preserved. That means, when system A has twice
as large a value in the DB-Engines Ranking as system B, then it is
twice as popular when averaged over the individual evaluation
criteria.

The DB-Engines Ranking does not measure the number of installations of
the systems, or their use within IT systems. It can be expected, that
an increase of the popularity of a system as measured by the
DB-Engines Ranking (e.g. in discussions or job offers) precedes a
corresponding broad use of the system by a certain time factor.
Because of this, the DB-Engines Ranking can act as an early indicator.


On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:30 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.artful at gmail.com> wrote:
> *Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
> Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
> 3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
> Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE*
> A few things surprised me: that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo
> has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.
>
> --
> Arthur
> _______________________________________________
> dba-SQLServer mailing list
> dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
> http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
> http://www.databaseadvisors.com
>



-- 
Gary Kjos
garykjos at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com


From darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au  Tue Jan 20 16:52:34 2015
From: darryl at whittleconsulting.com.au (Darryl Collins)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:52:34 +0000
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases
In-Reply-To: <AM2PR06MB09138CD360B54E86DC7303F7CA4F0@AM2PR06MB0913.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM2PR06MB09138CD360B54E86DC7303F7CA4F0@AM2PR06MB0913.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <HKXPR04MB36081DE88627BD5A4F0B070FC4B0@HKXPR04MB360.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>

Good Points Gustav - And I can see the IT dept POV for sure.  Access can be a right PITA when used badly (and many folks (ab)use it this way). 

My point was many requests submitted to IT for basic solutions are either refused outright - and/or too costly / time consuming for an individual dept's budget.  But folks are resourceful.  If IT won't do it, they'll find another way.  Sadly there is a large gap in available skills between those who can do basic VBA programming and those who can create robust solutions in Visual Studio.

Most folks I find don't really understand data either and this leads to problems.  A simple example is nearly all of them design their input to look like their output - usually a recipe for trouble.

Appreciate your comments.
Cheers
Darryl

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Gustav Brock
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2015 7:16 PM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Hi Arthur and Darryl

Before we label all official IT leaders as stubborn better-knowing stupidos, let me add that I have worked on an Access project for a major business (40,000 employees) for two years.

First of all - and this is a real show stopper - Access isn't suited for team development. Even though you can get it to work to a degree with Visual SourceSafe, it can soon be a mess. 
Our team was small, one was the architect and did many queries and VBA to handle data, one did mainly reports, while I did the hard work with form navigation, larger modules, code, and query optimizing. We managed because we were very organized and typically operated in different corners, and I often during evenings and weekends. But it was much more difficult than if you work alone on a project.

The backend was SQL Server, an old mainframe, and a new SAP system. The application worked reasonable with SQL Server and the old mainframe, but when the SAP system replaced the mainframe and the amount of data grew dramatically, performance went down, and the project was put on hold.

Today I would advise against using Access for such kind of project. It takes a little more (well, a lot more) to build a user interface comparable to Access, but I'm convinced that the flexibility and options for teamwork you gain by using Visual Studio is well worth the extra work. 
Also, VBA is limited regarding event handling and even though you can use WithEvents, we chose to refrain from it because code soon gets messy. VBA isn't really on the beat, and often you sit and wish you had C# at your hands.

/gustav

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] P? vegne af Darryl Collins
Sendt: 16. januar 2015 03:01
Til: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Emne: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Yes... I see this all the time, everywhere.

You go via the official IT path and put in an initial "What about we try this" type of request request - the usual response is

1: it is too pissy and bespoke for real IT folks to deal with - they refuse to do it outright. Only work on 'real' projects.
2: They will do it, but it will take 10 months and cost $XXX,000+, plus ongoing maint fees.
3: The requestor has to fill out a detailed 40 page scope document for every darn change and get several different folks to sign off on it.
4: They won't build it in Access, has to be on a real platform, which is fine, but the user loses all flexibility and control and cannot customise it in anyway.

99% percent of the time folks go "WTF! - I'll do it myself" (or hire someone like me or you to do it for them).  And they do - all the time.  I know of whole essential systems of Access Databases and even Excel solutions that are used daily in major corps that are not approved or even officially exist.  But it was the only way the users could get the job done.

Cheers
DC

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Doug Murphy
Sent: Friday, 16 January 2015 6:06 AM
To: 'Discussion concerning MS SQL Server'
Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

Access does not surprise me at all. If you go into any large organization you will find many Access applications in daily use that were created by the employees who had a need that couldn't be met by the enterprise system. 

-----Original Message-----
From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com
[mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Arthur Fuller
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 10:30 AM
To: Discussion concerning MS SQL Server
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] DB-Engines list of top 10 databases

*Top 10 database management systems, ranked on popularity, Nov 2014.
Source: DB-Engines <http://db-engines.com/en/ranking>* 1 *Oracle* 2 *MySQL*
3 *Microsoft SQL Server* 4 *PostgreSQL* 5 *MongoDB* 6 *IBM DB2* 7 *Microsoft
Access* 8 *SQLite* 9 *Cassandra* 10 *Sybase ASE* A few things surprised me:
that MySQL is ahead of SQL Server; that Mongo has become so popular so quickly, and that Access is still in the Top 10.

--
Arthur 


_______________________________________________
dba-SQLServer mailing list
dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com
http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver
http://www.databaseadvisors.com



From fuller.artful at gmail.com  Wed Jan 21 07:45:46 2015
From: fuller.artful at gmail.com (Arthur Fuller)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:45:46 -0500
Subject: [dba-SQLServer] Oracle's January fixes
Message-ID: <CAEPJO1j19sESjC8P2mgZYe6+OcAiKzMYwtB4RjrWKRSa+yN=tA@mail.gmail.com>

Big bag of fixes! Oracle's Critical Patches for Jan 2015 fix 160 holes in
48 products, with 93 of those vulnerabilities remotely exploitable.

-- 
Arthur