Conversation started Jan 3, 2014 at 13:30.
Jan 3, 2014 13:30
2
A: Shall we add a new 'off-topic' reason for questions that are 'too basic'?

Jon EricsonI'm not sure if my experience is typical, but every DBA I've known has been asked by management to "teach the basics of SQL to the team". And they all had their own stack of PowerPoint slides to teach people how to join tables and use GROUP BY. It's far from a good use of their time (why not br...

this looks very sensible?
Jan 3, 2014 13:47
I've read it a couple of times and I'm still not clear what it is advocating.
@JackDouglas if he means: create a one time library of so called basic Questions and answers so in the future we can always redirect people with similar questions to these existing ones, I would say +1
That would be no different from that which we already do for all questions.
@EdwardDortland That's what SO is for
@EdwardDortland I think he means a single CW for 'how to learn the basics of SQL'
and look what that does to @AaronBertrand's sanity
Jan 3, 2014 13:51
A single CW for learning SQL seems an ideal candidate for closing as too broad.
@PaulWhite it would be an exception
@PaulWhite It doesn't seem like he means a single CW. I think he means a CW for JOINS, a CW for GROUP BY, etc
Well I dont really mind if the default q/a is hosted on SO or on DBA, what I'm bothered about if we go for the " closed because of to basic" approach. that you leave a newby out in the cold. At the minimum I should point him to a source where he can find his/her answer
I have no objection to basic SQL questions here, so long as they are good questions. The line between basic and not-basic has always seemed illusory to me.
@bluefeet "...either a single question..."
Jan 3, 2014 13:53
@JackDouglas "... or several questions..."
@bluefeet That could work. But again, these would just be canonical/wiki answers to ordinary questions. I see no need for special attention here.
@bluefeet I don't think that is such a good idea :)
The right approach seems to me to answer "basic" questions well and then close future duplicates as, er, duplicates.
@JackDouglas I don't like the idea either. I was always under the impression that DBA was for more advanced DB stuff including SQL - basic stuff goes to SO
2
@bluefeet I'm honestly not sure SO wants it anymore
not if it was posted here that is
Jan 3, 2014 13:55
I'm not sure SO is very good at it either.
@PaulWhite exactly: I'd rather we gave an answer here
but not that we drown in it
The problem with SO is that most basic SQL questions are getting closed as minimal understanding now.
and people aren't getting any help
@bluefeet if we are the expert board then we should make sure all are answers are of expert quality even for simple questions:
-1 because copy only option with a full backup has nothing to do with LSN chains. Itresearcher pointed that out but you didn't update/delete your answer. — Edward Dortland 6 hours ago
we could easily end up with 50% of our questions very basic SQL
@EdwardDortland I think this is tiresome for our experts
we want this to be fun for them
@JackDouglas but I also see the argument that DBAs still need to learn basic SQL and coming to DBA would be helpful - but it is a catch-22 because we open ourselves up to crap!
2
Jan 3, 2014 13:57
@bluefeet I see that too
@bluefeet this is actually why I like the idea of an excellent canonical answer
if it was a real help for beginners
but forced them to learn
@JackDouglas That's not the same as saying 50% of our time would be spent on them.
rather than just "get their answer"
@PaulWhite true
but the more we have, the more we'll get
and we'll end up with high-rep users who don't know much
this is what I mean by dilution
not if we close the question as to basic and redirect them to a SO library
but, at the minimum, be helpful and redirect them
@EdwardDortland what's an SO library?
a group of Q/A's with the basics but created at SO if you want to keep the basic stuff away from dba.stackexchange.com
Jan 3, 2014 14:00
@JackDouglas I'm not so sure. There really aren't all that many good basic SQL questions. Once enough good answers exist, new ones just close as a duplicate. Hard to see how high-rep low-knowledge users could arise from that.
@EdwardDortland those probably exist already on SO, if you try to create it now it would probably be deleted.
@JackDouglas I must be missing the point here. Surely this ends up being a book?
@MarkStorey-Smith A list of references I imagined
@PaulWhite finding the duplicates isn't that easy: if it was SO would have closed most of it's questions as dupes I think
I don't see how it would be beneficial to have a 1001 CW answers for "you need a semi-colon at the end of that line" and so on
There's no way you could sensibly cover learning SQL in one answer.
Jan 3, 2014 14:02
you could give a man a place to start
@PaulWhite nor one book
@Mark @paul I can totally see a lot of questions that can't be covered. I agree with you on that.
@JackDouglas That would be google, with a minimal level of understanding required to operate it
@MarkStorey-Smith no need to answer the actual question: just, you are a complete beginner, never mind your actual problem go away and learn some basics.
@JackDouglas We don't have that many super-active users with the ability to VtC questions. It wouldn't be so hard to get into the habit of closing as duplicate instead of VtC to move to SO, too localized or whatever people do right now.
Jan 3, 2014 14:03
and even if we could cover, it would take days reading and searching to find your answer.
@JackDouglas Yes, that
@MarkStorey-Smith Quite. People have tried that and failed already :)
@PaulWhite that's a good option for actual duplicates if we can do it
but it isn't quite what this is about I think
Perhaps I am missing the point.
which is the infinite variety of non-dupes that are trivial SQL problems
Jan 3, 2014 14:04
@MarkStorey-Smith Or actually buying, I don't know, a book
I'm suggesting we close them all as dupes of one: "noobs start here" question
@AaronBertrand Baby steps :)
I don't know what the "noob starts here" question could possibly contain
a summary of resources we'd actually recommend
links to documentation even
@aaron why should it be limited to our content?
Jan 3, 2014 14:06
@JackDouglas Which we then have to maintain.
@MarkStorey-Smith would it ever change?
I imagine not very often
@JackDouglas And to be frank, I'm not interested in helping the sort of person that can't google their way to the docs for the platform they're using
@MarkStorey-Smith The Oracle Database Concepts guide isn't that well know but is a great place for an overview. I think there are folk that are worth helping who would not know what to Google.
@Mark if that is the case, Why should we act on Basic questions at all? Lets just auto delete them if they didn't generate a truly "added value" answer?
leave them on for x perdio of days and them auto clean...
@EdwardDortland Sounds perfect to me
Jan 3, 2014 14:11
@EdwardDortland that was the original idea of a "too basic" close reason
Isn't that what happens anyway? Daft questions get down-voted, closed as too localized (or whatever) and eventually deleted.
@JackDouglas It's an amazing document
@JackDouglas "too localized" suffices IMO
I can totally understand that if you've been here for a long time that the same old question drive you crazy.... but my point is, that closing questions qith just the reason. To basic, bye bye, sound to arogant, and at the minimum is not helpful...
How would we define "too basic" anyway?
Jan 3, 2014 14:14
@PaulWhite I think that is a large part of the problem
Well that's another point, because that is also very different per subject area and expert..
BTW @PaulWhite I like your cat face! :)
@EdwardDortland Fair point. The close reason does have an explanation as to why a Q was closed however and a link to the relevant portion of the FAQ. Consider also that the majority of this type of questions arise from unregistered users that have no interest in participating here beyond getting someone to fix their current problem.
A bad question is a bad question regardless of subjective evaluations like "too basic".
@bluefeet I've given up trying to earn new hats since I got the cat one!
The cat one is one of the few that works well with my avatar, heh.
Jan 3, 2014 14:17
@mark @PaulWhite, that why autoreculating might be the best thing. If nobody bothered to answer, then the community apperently found the question not interesting enough... You'll never have decission on a personal level.
That still doesn't deal with the M.ali situations ;-)
@AaronBertrand @JNK Did you get a lot of snow?
We have about 6"
There may be value in maintaining a short per-product list of links to official documentation and maybe books we could recommend as part of the site FAQ. Not at all sure about the need for a close reason to point to it though. The ones we have already seem sufficient to me.
that's not too bad
@EdwardDortland Auto-what? Sorry I don't understand.
Jan 3, 2014 14:19
@PaulWhite sounds like something that could be added to each wiki
@AaronBertrand Which "wiki" do you mean?
Both, e.g. the tag wiki and then individual version-specific ones e.g. would point to that version's BOL.
@PaulWhite auto delete after x days if nobody answered
JNK
JNK
@bluefeet I got like 5-6 inches it looks like
@EdwardDortland Hm. Seems a bit unfair on good questions where someone able to answer it hasn't encountered it yet. Don't bad questions (heavily down-voted, no answers) already get deleted after x days?
Jan 3, 2014 14:21
@EdwardDortland take a poll of how many questions - regardless of complexity - go unanswered for very long. The list is very small, and usually it's the too complex ones that people can't answer. There's always someone willing to get rep for simple questions (this is one of the negative aspects of SO IMHO).
@AaronBertrand I imagine (and that's all) that fewer people reads the tag wikis than the FAQ.
@PaulWhite We can close a a dupe in that case, without need for a custom close reason.
@PaulWhite @AaronBertrand yes both valid points.
@PaulWhite probably true, but if we add a link to the close reason, and/or are diligent about pointing people there in comments when they do ask simple questions
@PaulWhite ie less than zero
2
Jan 3, 2014 14:23
@JackDouglas did you just call Paul negative?
ha ha ha
I don't think I've ever seen so many stars from a single conversation.
3
@JackDouglas To what would the dupe point?
@bluefeet I had to star that.
@PaulWhite the CW list of references
Jan 3, 2014 14:25
@JackDouglas Ah I see. I was thinking of a FAQ entry. Perhaps they are the same thing, I don't know much about how these things are organized.
@PaulWhite FAQ as in the help pages or meta?
@JackDouglas You are just trying to expose my ignorance further now :)
@JackDouglas Help pages.
We don't have much control over them
Jan 3, 2014 14:27
I see.
Shame, because to create a CW list of references using the Q & A format, we'd have to break our own rules. A question like "what are good/official resources for learning SQL in Product x" would be closed as too broad, shopping list etc.
OTOH "Where can I find the official Oracle database concepts documentation?" seems quite reasonable. Why doesn't it exist?
@PaulWhite it's OK to break our rules :)
CW is pretty much for that purpose I think
On a different note... @PaulWhite @SimonRigharts I'll be passing through Wellington on 12th March, beer's on me.
3
No-one understands what CW is for.
very true
And breaking our own rules is an odd precedent to set, especially for a mod :)
@MarkStorey-Smith Passing through? How come?
Looks like I'm heading into Welly in March then.
Jan 3, 2014 14:31
@PaulWhite In Sydney for a wedding 24th Feb to 3rd March, then visiting friend in NZ until 13th. In Auckland, out Welly, majority of time around Napier.
@PaulWhite Are you a long way out from Welly?
No. Only an hour or so by train.
Car might be a bad idea :)
Fixed.
Excellent. I get to kill two stones with one bird. Can finally meet Simon at the same time.
Feels weird to have been using The Heap for its intended purpose for a while this morning.
3
Duplicate...one search on Google I found the other question on DBA.SE
0
Q: Get the job scripts out of a MSDB Backup

Lord RelixLong Story Short... my Database server died a month ago. I restored everything but the MSDB as the tape backup failed. I reconstructed some jobs but some essential ones are missing. I finally found the MSDB backup in an old partition, but here's the gist... it isn't a .BAK file but the actual dat...

Jan 3, 2014 14:47
@PaulWhite Why can't it be on our Meta? That wouldn't violate the rules, would it?
@AndriyM Not very meta is it?
do we want this?
0
Q: Clustering and Deadlock in SQL Server 2008?

user2595169All, I am running into a deadlock in SQL Server 2008. Using a profiler I was able to determine that the deadlock happens as I am trying to select and update row(S) in table in 2 different sessions. The select query from the profiler is shown below select nodeinstan0_.id as id35_, nodeinstan0...

A nice answer:
1
A: An example of a relation without any functional dependency?

Iain ElderReal life example from Edinburgh The table below holds data for some popular pubs in the city. Name Capacity Area Brass Monkey 100 Centre Tourmalet 100 Leith Cask and Barrel 70 Leith Captains 60 Centre There are no functional dependen...

@bluefeet What's is got to do with Clustering? Seems a very specific (localized) question. A better, more general question would likely be closed as duplicate of:
28
Q: What are the main causes of deadlocks and can they be prevented?

Coder HawkRecently one of our ASP.NET applications displayed a database deadlock error and I was requested to check and fix the error. I managed to find the cause of the deadlock was a stored procedure that was rigorously updating a table within a CURSOR. This is the first time I've seen this error and d...

@PaulWhite As part of the answer to a question about good SQL resources, it would seem to me meta enough. I think the more reasonable part of common shopping list questions about SQL could reside on Meta.
Jan 3, 2014 15:01
@AndriyM I thought Meta was for questions about the main site, not as a home for off-topic questions.
I might be wrong though, it's just my opinion.
@AndriyM if it was on meta, it couldn't be the 'close as dupe' target
@JackDouglas It would be a FAQ resource that this community could manage, unlike the standard help FAQ. But Paul is correct, I was actually somewhat confused indeed. If Meta is about the (main) site, but not about the subject of the main site, then my suggestion is irrelevant
yes that's right on all counts I think
meta is the real FAQ
and you could have a general "why was my question closed with a link to this post"
but I think on balance main is better if we do this
 
Conversation ended Jan 3, 2014 at 15:08.