MCDBA hot or not?

I've been working with SQL for close to a year now and I'm wondering if its worth the time and money to become certified. Are DBA's still on the up and rising or another job that will be outsourced to India?Anyone???|||I'm curious of the same thing. I have been working with SQL for a little over a year. I'm wondering if it's still on the up and rising and also if it pays financially. I've heard both good and bad so far. :confused:|||While some DBA work could be done remotely from offshore contractors, most companies want at least a few critical support people on-site. DBA's and network engineers seem very stable positions at this point. The developer DBA positions seem to be moving offshore with the programming staff. Make sure you are a production DBA with skills in data warehousing and you will have a career in the USA for the next ten years.

The MCDBA certification might make the difference if your company is deciding which positions to outsource. If I was making that decision, I would keep the MCDBA's with five years experience and outsource those with less credentials.

Just my opinion but I have read similar sentiments in the IT trade publications...

MCDBA ebooks - share, exchange

I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
Microsoft ebooks.
I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
Microsoft ones.
Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
-king19For SQL Server 2000, the best way is stil SQL Server Books Online. For SQL
Server 2005, Books Online is not really good. Go grab the SQL Server 2005
Administrator's Pocket Consultant. It's great for DBAs
"king19" wrote:
> I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
> I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
> Microsoft ebooks.
> I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
> Microsoft ones.
> Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
> -king19
>|||The thing is, I know how Oracle works, and now I've got a few SQL
Server instances to administer, which are new to me.
So, I'd like to have a nice ebook to learn SQL Server features and
compare it with Oracle.
SQL Server books online are good for someone who already has good
experience and needs to find some details here and there. They are not
good, in my opinion, for the beginners - too much detail.
I found that Oracle traning books are just great for learning the most
important parts quickly. Later, as the needs arise, DBA may need to
reference Oracle documentation - similar to SQL Server Books Online.
So, I was looking for some Microsoft training ebooks to learn the most
important elements of SQL Server administration quickly.
Like I said, I'll share all Oracle training/certification ebooks if
someone is willing to share some of these SQL Server ebooks.
Thanks,
-king19
bass_player wrote:
> For SQL Server 2000, the best way is stil SQL Server Books Online. For SQL
> Server 2005, Books Online is not really good. Go grab the SQL Server 2005
> Administrator's Pocket Consultant. It's great for DBAs
> "king19" wrote:
> > I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
> > I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
> > Microsoft ebooks.
> >
> > I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
> > Microsoft ones.
> >
> > Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
> >
> > -king19
> >
> >|||Check out virtual labs for learning, microsoft technet is a good place for
technical articles, msdn library too.
Don
"king19" wrote:
> The thing is, I know how Oracle works, and now I've got a few SQL
> Server instances to administer, which are new to me.
> So, I'd like to have a nice ebook to learn SQL Server features and
> compare it with Oracle.
> SQL Server books online are good for someone who already has good
> experience and needs to find some details here and there. They are not
> good, in my opinion, for the beginners - too much detail.
> I found that Oracle traning books are just great for learning the most
> important parts quickly. Later, as the needs arise, DBA may need to
> reference Oracle documentation - similar to SQL Server Books Online.
> So, I was looking for some Microsoft training ebooks to learn the most
> important elements of SQL Server administration quickly.
> Like I said, I'll share all Oracle training/certification ebooks if
> someone is willing to share some of these SQL Server ebooks.
> Thanks,
> -king19
> bass_player wrote:
> > For SQL Server 2000, the best way is stil SQL Server Books Online. For SQL
> > Server 2005, Books Online is not really good. Go grab the SQL Server 2005
> > Administrator's Pocket Consultant. It's great for DBAs
> >
> > "king19" wrote:
> >
> > > I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
> > > I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
> > > Microsoft ebooks.
> > >
> > > I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
> > > Microsoft ones.
> > >
> > > Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
> > >
> > > -king19
> > >
> > >
>sql

MCDBA ebooks - share, exchange

I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
Microsoft ebooks.
I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
Microsoft ones.
Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
-king19For SQL Server 2000, the best way is stil SQL Server Books Online. For SQL
Server 2005, Books Online is not really good. Go grab the SQL Server 2005
Administrator's Pocket Consultant. It's great for DBAs
"king19" wrote:

> I'm an Oracle certified DBA.
> I am in need of ebooks on SQL Server Administration, preferably
> Microsoft ebooks.
> I'll share/exchange tons of Oracle DBA training ebooks for these
> Microsoft ones.
> Please let me know at tasking1914@.yahoo.com.
> -king19
>|||The thing is, I know how Oracle works, and now I've got a few SQL
Server instances to administer, which are new to me.
So, I'd like to have a nice ebook to learn SQL Server features and
compare it with Oracle.
SQL Server books online are good for someone who already has good
experience and needs to find some details here and there. They are not
good, in my opinion, for the beginners - too much detail.
I found that Oracle traning books are just great for learning the most
important parts quickly. Later, as the needs arise, DBA may need to
reference Oracle documentation - similar to SQL Server Books Online.
So, I was looking for some Microsoft training ebooks to learn the most
important elements of SQL Server administration quickly.
Like I said, I'll share all Oracle training/certification ebooks if
someone is willing to share some of these SQL Server ebooks.
Thanks,
-king19
bass_player wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> For SQL Server 2000, the best way is stil SQL Server Books Online. For SQ
L
> Server 2005, Books Online is not really good. Go grab the SQL Server 2005
> Administrator's Pocket Consultant. It's great for DBAs
> "king19" wrote:
>|||Check out virtual labs for learning, microsoft technet is a good place for
technical articles, msdn library too.
Don
"king19" wrote:

> The thing is, I know how Oracle works, and now I've got a few SQL
> Server instances to administer, which are new to me.
> So, I'd like to have a nice ebook to learn SQL Server features and
> compare it with Oracle.
> SQL Server books online are good for someone who already has good
> experience and needs to find some details here and there. They are not
> good, in my opinion, for the beginners - too much detail.
> I found that Oracle traning books are just great for learning the most
> important parts quickly. Later, as the needs arise, DBA may need to
> reference Oracle documentation - similar to SQL Server Books Online.
> So, I was looking for some Microsoft training ebooks to learn the most
> important elements of SQL Server administration quickly.
> Like I said, I'll share all Oracle training/certification ebooks if
> someone is willing to share some of these SQL Server ebooks.
> Thanks,
> -king19
> bass_player wrote:
>

MCDBA

I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
Does it really help.
TIA.
The simple answer is yes. It does increase prospects -- a lot of managers
like to see it on resumes and I often see job postings for DBAs that require
certification. However, be ready to back it up! I have interviewed more
than one certified candidate who was unable to answer anything beyond the
most simple questions. If someone puts a certification on a resume and
doesn't know the system fairly well, they'll get even lower points from me
than someone who was honest -- so don't forget what you learn when preparing

<sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegro ups.com...
> I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
> SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
> Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
> I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
> Does it really help.
> TIA.
>
|||Hello,
I am doing IT business now since over 15 years.
I was never asked for any certificate.
All they wanted to know is:
What's your experience?
So I would say 8 years experience is enough to kickout every certified rookie.
But if you don't have experience, just because you are young and start your
career,
every rookie with a certificate is better than one without.
So there it always not a black/white view, it always depends.
greets michael
"Adam Machanic" wrote:

> The simple answer is yes. It does increase prospects -- a lot of managers
> like to see it on resumes and I often see job postings for DBAs that require
> certification. However, be ready to back it up! I have interviewed more
> than one certified candidate who was unable to answer anything beyond the
> most simple questions. If someone puts a certification on a resume and
> doesn't know the system fairly well, they'll get even lower points from me
> than someone who was honest -- so don't forget what you learn when preparing
>
>
> <sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
|||I would say it is a "nice to have" - not essential. If you have a proven
track record of working at prestigious companies with good references, then
it's not so important. The main reason MCDBA is important (IMO) is to get
yourself to the interview stage. However be prepared for the technical
questions! Some people seem to have MCDBA without knowing the basics of SQL
Server - perhaps they lied on their CV.
I don't think the MCDBA qualification is as important as your employment
history and references, and perhaps even your academic qualifications. i.e.
are you degree-level educated. I live in UK, so have a UK bias - attitudes
may be different in other countries.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
<sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegro ups.com...
> I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
> SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
> Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
> I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
> Does it really help.
> TIA.
>

MCDBA

I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
Does it really help.
TIA.The simple answer is yes. It does increase prospects -- a lot of managers
like to see it on resumes and I often see job postings for DBAs that require
certification. However, be ready to back it up! I have interviewed more
than one certified candidate who was unable to answer anything beyond the
most simple questions. If someone puts a certification on a resume and
doesn't know the system fairly well, they'll get even lower points from me
than someone who was honest -- so don't forget what you learn when preparing
:)
<sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
> SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
> Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
> I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
> Does it really help.
> TIA.
>|||Hello,
I am doing IT business now since over 15 years.
I was never asked for any certificate.
All they wanted to know is:
What's your experience?
So I would say 8 years experience is enough to kickout every certified rookie.
But if you don't have experience, just because you are young and start your
career,
every rookie with a certificate is better than one without.
So there it always not a black/white view, it always depends.
greets michael
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> The simple answer is yes. It does increase prospects -- a lot of managers
> like to see it on resumes and I often see job postings for DBAs that require
> certification. However, be ready to back it up! I have interviewed more
> than one certified candidate who was unable to answer anything beyond the
> most simple questions. If someone puts a certification on a resume and
> doesn't know the system fairly well, they'll get even lower points from me
> than someone who was honest -- so don't forget what you learn when preparing
> :)
>
> <sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> > I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
> > SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
> > Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
> > I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
> > Does it really help.
> >
> > TIA.
> >
>
>|||I would say it is a "nice to have" - not essential. If you have a proven
track record of working at prestigious companies with good references, then
it's not so important. The main reason MCDBA is important (IMO) is to get
yourself to the interview stage. However be prepared for the technical
questions! Some people seem to have MCDBA without knowing the basics of SQL
Server - perhaps they lied on their CV.
I don't think the MCDBA qualification is as important as your employment
history and references, and perhaps even your academic qualifications. i.e.
are you degree-level educated. I live in UK, so have a UK bias - attitudes
may be different in other countries.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
<sqlsdba@.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:1096896345.497601.98570@.k17g2000odb.googlegroups.com...
> I am a sql server dba with more than 2 yrs of experience in managing
> SS2000. Overall I have 8 years of experience as a DBA, mostly in
> Informix, but now I am increasingly involved in SS.
> I want to know whether MCDBA certification increases any job prospects.
> Does it really help.
> TIA.
>

Maximum number of rows?

Hello Everyone
I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problem
with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particula
with indexes. He was not more specific(!)
Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records
My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need t
take this into account early in the DB design phase because an
structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions
etc as well as the application
I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my experienc
has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing considerabl
effort going into a work around after we are in production
If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very thankfu
for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under wha
circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems
Regards
MariN of rows is limited only with storage capacity (check
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/architec/8_ar_ts_8dbn.asp).
Personally, I worked with a table with 3.5 billions rows without a
problem...
--
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Everyone:
> I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
> with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
> with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
> Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
> of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
> My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
> take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
> structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
> etc as well as the application.
> I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my
experience
> has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
> Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
> out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing
considerable
> effort going into a work around after we are in production.
> If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very
thankful
> for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
> circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
> Regards,
> Mario
>|||I am not aware of any problems at all. 13 million rows is quite a small
number as far as SQL Server is concerned. I have no ideas where the "DBA"
plucked this figure from - I would be interested to hear where. Even if you
use bigint as the PK for a table you could have 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
rows (I can't say that number, so have to write it down as digits). :-)
--
Mark Allison
SQL Server MVP
http://www.allisonmitchell.com
"Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Everyone:
> I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
> with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
> with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
> Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
> of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
> My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
> take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
> structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
> etc as well as the application.
> I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my
experience
> has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
> Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
> out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing
considerable
> effort going into a work around after we are in production.
> If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very
thankful
> for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
> circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
> Regards,
> Mario
>|||You'll run against the storage capacity limits of SQL Server long before you
reach that number. The maximum size for a database is 1,048,516 Tera Bytes,
and you're talking about approximately 9,000,000 Tera rows.
"DBA" indeed. Mario, both Mark and me are on the market at the moment ;-)
--
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Mark Allison" <mark@.allisonmitchellyourpants.c0m> wrote in message
news:uieUWhW8DHA.2524@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am not aware of any problems at all. 13 million rows is quite a small
> number as far as SQL Server is concerned. I have no ideas where the "DBA"
> plucked this figure from - I would be interested to hear where. Even if
you
> use bigint as the PK for a table you could have 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
> rows (I can't say that number, so have to write it down as digits). :-)
> --
> Mark Allison
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.allisonmitchell.com
> "Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello Everyone:
> >
> > I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
> > with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
> > with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
> >
> > Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
> > of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
> >
> > My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
> > take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
> > structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
> > etc as well as the application.
> >
> > I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my
> experience
> > has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
> > Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
> > out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing
> considerable
> > effort going into a work around after we are in production.
> >
> > If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very
> thankful
> > for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
> > circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mario
> >
>|||Jacco
my feelings exactly.
Earlier today I asked him to provide a source for his statement should anything turn up I'll post back here
Thanks again
Mario

Maximum number of rows?

Hello Everyone:
I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
etc as well as the application.
I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my experience
has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing considera
ble
effort going into a work around after we are in production.
If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very thankfu
l
for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
Regards,
MarioN of rows is limited only with storage capacity (check
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...br />
8dbn.asp).
Personally, I worked with a table with 3.5 billions rows without a
problem...
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
More than just Training
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Everyone:
> I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
> with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
> with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
> Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
> of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
> My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
> take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
> structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
> etc as well as the application.
> I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my
experience
> has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
> Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
> out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing
considerable
> effort going into a work around after we are in production.
> If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very
thankful
> for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
> circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
> Regards,
> Mario
>|||I am not aware of any problems at all. 13 million rows is quite a small
number as far as SQL Server is concerned. I have no ideas where the "DBA"
plucked this figure from - I would be interested to hear where. Even if you
use bigint as the PK for a table you could have 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
rows (I can't say that number, so have to write it down as digits). :-)
Mark Allison
SQL Server MVP
http://www.allisonmitchell.com
"Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> Hello Everyone:
> I have been told by our DBA that SQL Server 2000 has problems
> with tables that contain more than 13 million reocords, in particular
> with indexes. He was not more specific(!).
> Our group is in the process of developing an application and a couple
> of the tables we will be using will contain up to 50 million records.
> My worry here, is that if what our DBA said is correct that we need to
> take this into account early in the DB design phase because any
> structural changes to the DB have impact on the procedures, functions,
> etc as well as the application.
> I had not heard any such statement previously made and in fact my
experience
> has been quite positive with larger tables (over 20 million).
> Nevertheless I am still somewhat concerned at the prospect of finding
> out he was correct "after the fact", so to speak, and thus causing
considerable
> effort going into a work around after we are in production.
> If anyone has heard or knows of anything of the sort I would be very
thankful
> for your advice or to hear your experiences, especially under what
> circumstances if any does SQL Server have problems.
> Regards,
> Mario
>|||You'll run against the storage capacity limits of SQL Server long before you
reach that number. The maximum size for a database is 1,048,516 Tera Bytes,
and you're talking about approximately 9,000,000 Tera rows.
"DBA" indeed. Mario, both Mark and me are on the market at the moment ;-)
Jacco Schalkwijk
SQL Server MVP
"Mark Allison" <mark@.allisonmitchellyourpants.c0m> wrote in message
news:uieUWhW8DHA.2524@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I am not aware of any problems at all. 13 million rows is quite a small
> number as far as SQL Server is concerned. I have no ideas where the "DBA"
> plucked this figure from - I would be interested to hear where. Even if
you
> use bigint as the PK for a table you could have 9,223,372,036,854,775,807
> rows (I can't say that number, so have to write it down as digits). :-)
> --
> Mark Allison
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.allisonmitchell.com
> "Mario" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:94D5DF8D-D5BE-4563-A4A3-E29485D36E09@.microsoft.com...
> experience
> considerable
> thankful
>|||Jacco,
my feelings exactly.
Earlier today I asked him to provide a source for his statement should anyth
ing turn up I'll post back here.
Thanks again!
Mario