Well, today has definitely been enlightening. I've been around and around with a few folks (mostly Tim Huckaby and Richard Campbell – who are BOTH great friends and people whose opinions I greatly respect!!!) and I've come a conclusion… Paul started down this line of commentary here: http://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/PAUL/post/Mandatory-SQL-breathalyzer-test.aspx and this was in reference to something I was saying in our long thread…

But, where I'm at is somewhere that I'm not sure entirely understand AND I need your help. I need to understand where and with whom do you think each role should be…. Here's what I think:

The DBA has to be able to trust the code that a developer submits – plain and simple (yes, this is absolutely true). But, (IMO) it’s still the database developer that writes the code and they’re the ones that need to know what goes on IN the db and the best practices of database design/development. The database developer should know how to create scalable schemas, they should know best practices, they should have a fundamental understanding about their specific platform as well (whether it's SQL Server or DB2 or even that O one :)). At a minimum, they should have a basic understanding of things to avoid… But, I'll give you this – it's not easy and it's not like the best practices really jump out at you. I'll even argue that some of the defaults INSIDE of SQL Server itself aren't ideal (ah, let me give a list: database size and autogrowth settings have HORRIBLE defaults, the PRIMARY KEY of a table is – by default – enforced with a UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX (and, well, there are many cases when that's not the best CLUSTERING KEY even though it might be a completely legitimate PRIMARY KEY), databases default to the FULL recovery model but run in a pseudo simple mode where log truncation on checkpoint occurs automatically (ah, until you do your first backup…)). Ugh, many of these things can catch you out and can completely cause you grief… and some are horribly complex to change after the fact (like what is your PRIMARY KEY and/or what is the index type of a key). So, it's definitely NOT easy. BUT, back to my original point – someone needs to know this and I need to find out who YOU think should? I think it's the database developer and NOT the DBA. I think there should be a somewhat blurred line between the database developer and the DBA. IMO, the DBA needs to know operational stuff (backup/restore, availability, security, maintenance… and, this is a HUGE list of things to really understand in and of itself – especially when you're managing this for many servers), it’s not their job (IMO) to know TSQL coding, error handling, stored procedure recompilations (although I can debate both sides of this last one), I would even argue in many cases it's not the DBA that should make the primary decisions on base indexing – I *REALLY* feel that it is the database developer – they should know the database schema, know the general access patterns AND know how the platform uses those objects so that they can make better design decisions EARLY. My favorite line is "the sooner you begin to code, the longer it's going to take" and it's really true.

However, with all of the discussions I've had today (and, I'm debating on posted an edited version of each of our rants… it's colorful in places :)), it feels to me like (and what I’m seeing more and more and more) is something that got mentioned early on in the thread – the database is “just plumbing” and the real application is in the client. Is this true… are there really only two players:

The Application Developer (who doesn't touch (because they're not allowed) OR possibly because they don't want to) the database
The DBA (who doesn't allow the AppDev to touch the database BUT doesn't touch it for them either because they're too busy and/or too protective over changes??)

Seriously, IS there a database developer in this formula above? And, is it a distinct person? I don't think so (personally)… I think the Application Developer SHOULD be the database developer. I think the AppDev should do EVERYTHING in terms of schema, keys, indexes, procedures, etc. AND once in production the two should work together to handle efficient and effective change control policies and procedures. There is a way to make this work. But, when good design doesn't exist – the database performance/scalability suffers, bad practices fester and then everyone blames SQL Server and no one really makes a change. In some cases, people just accept the poor performance as "how it works".

Thoughts??
kt