Any DBAs or SQL Developers want to weigh in here?

[BC_Goldman]

I've done various jobs within my current company and what I've loved the most is working with databases and SQL. I think I would like being a DBA and/or an SQL Developer. I've done work that went from designing the concept of a database through development, rollout, and ongoing support for our internal database that's used by about 200 people.

I was recently approached about taking over the role of the person who currently handles most of our SQL stuff. Initial conversations were good and it sounded like it would be a raise and a promotion and a title change to DBA.

Last week, I found out that someone (presumably upper management) has decided there will be no title change and I will remain a programmer. Additionally, there will be no raise for taking the position and they will be changing a person who reported to that person to report to someone else so there's no management involved (another justification for no raise).

This position handles virtually all the SQL-related work for any client that has it. Starting from implementation and database design, through overseeing data conversion, creating new reports, support, Access front-ends, etc.

I stopped counting at 200 databases this morning. Even if only half of those are still in use, that's over 100 databases being supported. This doesn't seem like a less-than-full-time role to me.

Am I wrong that this is a database administrator or something along those lines? I don't expect to be paid what a DBA should make since they don't pay programmers what they should make either but I at least want the title for my resume down the road and the experience would be good too.

[Sugaree]

At my organization, a DBA and a dB programmer are two very distinct roles.  The DBA is more like a SysAdmin (and fall under a different division than the programmers).  They are tasked with securing the dBs and making sure that they are patched and meet the latest requirements.  They do very little actual SQL programming.  As a developer, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out with a rusty fork than be a DBA. 

[BC_Goldman]

Would this sound more like an SQL Developer then? There's the actual creation and maintenance of the databases, some ELT, SQL writing, creating stored procs, etc. I don't know if he does the server updates/patches as well or not.

My understanding of the DBA role largely comes from this: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/database-administrators.htm#tab-2

[plog]

Agree with everything Sugaree said, especially:

As a developer, I'd rather gouge my own eyeballs out with a rusty fork than be a DBA.

They are both database janitors and executives--doing the unfun work at both levels: Applying patches, making sure licenses are valid,  spending hours in meetings about applying a new constraint or index.  All not fun things for programmers.

As you, I would not take this job, but I would be nearby to lend a hand when shit goes sideways.  If what you described is accurate this is a 2 person job, if those 2 people are already familiar with the system (e.g. you and a coworker).  If they are hiring outside people it's going to take 3 of them. 

Of course, that's not how upper management and HR work.  If Dave has been doing the job for 10 years by himself the only conclusion they can make is that this job is easy and only requires 1 person--if that.  There's no way it ever enters their mind that Dave really has his shit together and is a extraordinary at his job. 

I've known a few Dave's, don't be his direct replacement.  Be his replacement after HR and upper management realize that one average person cannot replace Dave.  Usually takes  18 months or after the 2nd replacement quits. 

[BC_Goldman]

That seems pretty solid advice. I don't know if I'll still be around at that point, but it doesn't feel like it's in my best interest to take the role given the lack of pay. The person in the role now has been with the company for 20+ years. I'm not sure how much of that has been doing this. I do think it's most decidedly NOT a less-than-full-time role. I do think it was HR that made the decision about pay.

Note that the question is what sort of role this is. At this point, they're not willing to assign it any role but are considering it a normal "Programmer / Analyst" role.

My original thought was to take it for the resume experience but not having a realistic title for the actual job responsibility and no pay increase despite the increased responsibility have soured me on it.

[Sugaree]

Would this sound more like an SQL Developer then? There's the actual creation and maintenance of the databases, some ELT, SQL writing, creating stored procs, etc. I don't know if he does the server updates/patches as well or not.

My understanding of the DBA role largely comes from this: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/database-administrators.htm#tab-2

The bolded would be more of a developer role and is the fun part.  My concern would be that you'd be responsible for everything else too. 

[thesis]

It could be a great opportunity for learning, but it's a bit of a red flag that they don't want to give you even a small raise, or change your job description. That makes it sound like they are hoping you will do that "on the side," when in fact it is a full-time position. Hiring you internally will save them a lot of money, so it sounds like they are trying to stiff you.

A lot of people hate Oracle, but if you are curious whether you would enjoy being a DBA, you could explore studying for one of their DBA certifications. It gives you a good idea of how far down that rabbit hole you might want to go. That being said, though, there is no shortage of demand for good SQL developers with a broader development background, especially if you build proficiency with stored procedures. In fact, with cloud technologies taking over a good chunk of the industry, dedicated DBA positions have in fact morphed into more of a sysadmin role. They will never go away completely, but the landscape has definitely shifted.

Bottom line, if you really enjoy SQL, you have some great opportunities ahead if you keep investing in your skills. However, it doesn't sound like your company appreciates those skills as much as it should.

Edit to add: Building and maintaining databases can be super fun when it's less restricted and you feel like your efforts have a direct and positive effect on others. However, the deeper you go, or the larger the organization, the less often you have those opportunities, as the landscape gets stuffier and the requirements understandably become more restricted. I don't mean to scare you away from it, but as a full-stack developer, SQL has never been as fun as it was when I was building useful Access databases at my non-tech internship. Just a heads up.

[FLBiker]

Of course, that's not how upper management and HR work.  If Dave has been doing the job for 10 years by himself the only conclusion they can make is that this job is easy and only requires 1 person--if that.  There's no way it ever enters their mind that Dave really has his shit together and is a extraordinary at his job. 

I've known a few Dave's, don't be his direct replacement.  Be his replacement after HR and upper management realize that one average person cannot replace Dave.  Usually takes  18 months or after the 2nd replacement quits.

Absolutely this!  We're currently going through something similar -- our DBA is leaving, and the replacement plan is, in my opinion, in adequate.  It was a team of two originally, then the junior one left and things didn't fall apart.  Now the senior one is leaving, and the "plan" is to replace her with a junior offshore DBA, since "it's just a one person job anyway".  We shall see.

Also, this thread seems like a good place to ask -- what are your favorite online resources for learning SQL?  I'm a BA, and I've done database development with weird tools (e.g. FileMaker, Ninox) and I'd like to learn SQL.  Feel free to PM me so as not to derail the thread.  Thanks!

[plog]

If you want to learn anything tech related and W3C has a tutorial for it, always start there:

https://www.w3schools.com/sql/

[Stimpy]

I feel pretty much everything has been said that needs to be said.

If it's just building queries, PL-SQL, etc.  Part time is probably ok.   Not the greatest idea but ok.
If your having to worry about backups, restorations, implementations and security.... Nope.   You want a full timer for that, especially if there are 100+ databases.   Lack of understanding admin around databases can and WILL expose exploits that could potentially be VERY VERY bad.   

I'd be cautious if it's more then just writing queries cause when you administer databases it can add a whole to to the plate.  (Might not but more often then not....)

[BC_Goldman]

On a related note, if anyone works at a place that's looking for someone who like working with SQL, shoot me a PM!

I've done some really cool automation and work reduction stuff in MS Office too.