Additional Thoughts on DBAs, Architects, Etc.

Additional Thoughts on DBAs, Architects, Etc.
Ralph wrote in with some additional feedback about the ideas behind the titles, the positions and the goals of the positions we’ve been talking about in the "Architect" and "Engineer" type debate.

RE: A database architect should be designing databases. Too many databases are thrown together without design.

I had already considered submitting a dissenting opinion but had not resolved to do so; however, your latest post leads me to state that I agree with James (and apparently the others that James consulted) rather than with David.

As I stated in another response, I have been in the profession long enough to predate the "invention" of the term DBA. At the time that DBA was being coined, I was involved in designing databases and considered whether there was truly a need for someone to specialize in that one activity . . . after all, at the time, designing the database was mostly considered to just be a part of the job of developing applications. As time passed, I remember there being a discussion as to whether "DBA" stood for "Database Architect" or "Database Analyst" or, somewhat later, "Database Administrator".

James’ comparisons, IMHO, are quite valid and very much on target. Architects do not necessarily make good construction managers because they envision the design of the of the system and want to make sure that the design is correct, functional, and elegant. On the other hand, the Engineer usually makes a poor Architect . . . possibly due to the same reason as Mark Twain’s comment about the man with a hammer, "To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Engineers tend to want to "make it work" . . . even if that means doing it by what my dad would describe as "brute force and awkwardness."

As I now see it, there is a place for someone, the Database Architect, who specializes in designing the database, taking into consideration the current needs and standards while also being prepared for the future needs of an organization. The Architect should also be expected to consider the purpose of the database (OLTP, OLAP, etc.) and design the database accordingly, just as a building architect would design an office building according to its purpose and a residence according to its purpose.

There is also a place for one who makes sure that all the basic hygienic needs of the database are handled, things like making sure that the tables, etc., are created as designed, that there is sufficient disc space, that maintenance plans are in place, etc., just as, once a building is constructed, there is a need for someone to be in charge of Building Maintenance/ This function would fall, IMHO, under the title of Database Administrator. Between these two would be what I would term the Database Analyst who serves the function of monitoring the performance of the database and, probably, assisting developers with creating stored procedures, queries, etc.

Each of these titular functions cannot be entirely isolated from the other and must work together. Conceivably, as in the old days, for a very small shop, all of the functions could be combined in one person; however, there will seldom be found someone who is good at all three aspects. Just as there was a time when a man could design, build, and then live in and maintain his own house, it is possible to design, build, and maintain one’s own database. However, even when one could build one’s own house, there were buildings that needed the specialization of labor that is needed today in our corporate world with regard to databases.

Featured White Paper(s)
SQL Server Virtualization Management
Virtualization is becoming the popular practice in many environments, allowing organizations of all sizes to utilize resource… (read more)