Talk:Database administrator

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Databases (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Databases, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DatabasesWikipedia:WikiProject DatabasesTemplate:WikiProject DatabasesDatabases

I would also note that DBAs can be differentiated into four groups:
1. Individuals that maintain it both as physical equipment (i.e. computer system) and as a set of software products (i.e. the database system, operating system, and associated applications).
2. Individuals that only maintain the equipment, typically network administrators or system administrators, but not necessarily familiar with database management.
3. Individuals that only perform database and application management.
4. Individuals that perform it as a function of software development. DBBell 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• I have to respectfully disagree with you on point 2. This person would be considered one of the following: Network Engineer (but not familiar with database administration), Windows Administrator, Systems Engineer, or even Help Desk/Hardware Support. How would this person be considered a "database administrator"? Thanks 24.222.249.125 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I do agree that point 2 should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.227.78 (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

• I must disagree with point 2 also. Sorry, but a pure technical worker is not a DBA.

• Okay I agree I don't believe that #2 would apply as I know of no DBAs who only work on the equipment. That does not mean a DBA cannot be the Network Administrator as well as a DBA or only a Network Administrator. Just never known of that occasion; I have 25 years in the business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.111 (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
• If you are not responsible for some aspect of database reliability, resiliency, or security, you are not a DBA. In fact, if you have other responsibilities, such as developing applications, restricting infrastructure implementation decisions, or cutting costs, then you will find yourself to be an adversary of the DBA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9294:BE00:A11F:EA1B:7DE7:D788 (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that this article needs a section mentioning that in smaller companies, the trend to move away from heavyweight mainframe operating systems and their accompanying databases toward open source, widely documented, small footprint operating systems (that run on a variety of hardware) and open source databases largely obviates the need for specialization in the field of database administration (a task that can be achieved via cooperation between system administrators and programmers), though i can't see a likely spot in the article to put this note - any suggestions?. Moe Aboulkheir 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. DBA has always been a specialist role. Not every company needs a DBA. So the fact that companies may operate in ways that don't require DBA's is not notable, it has always been the case. And it does not remove the need to describe what DBA's do for those companies who do need them. 75.40.19.216 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be inappropriate to worry about types of databases except in terms of how they impact a DBA's duties/definition. Having been a DBA for different products and different environments, I think I will edit this article further in the future. We should relink and refer to the database articles instead of trying to define them in this article.Victortan 16:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, anything about databases that isn't specific to DBAs should be moved to the database article —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-03-09 18:54Z

I'm sure it is not intentional, but there are frequent (6) references to Oracle here, and none to any other RDBMS. I added one to another RDBMS, but is it really necessary to keep namedropping Oracle? I'd prefer the article to be vendor-neutral. --Matthewleslie 01:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

It smells like an exaggeration to me to say that the cache hit ratio is a meaningless statistic. The language should probably be made more balanced. I'd also be interested in a reference that tells more about that claim.

The following sections, Definition of Database, Recoverability, Integrity, Security, Availability and Performance seems to be inappropriate for this article. These are issues which should be (and, in most cases are already) discussed in other articles. These sections should either be pruned (f.ex Definition of Database), or rewritten to focus on the DBA's responsibility in relation to the different tasks. Jerazol 05:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree with this, this article is about a DBA, not the above topics. --Twyford 11:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also agree and finally removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

The notability of this article is being questioned, with someone arguing that at the moment it's just a definition (albeit cited) and not deserving of its own article. Can someone with a firm grasp of Wikipedia's notability guidelines please advise? Jwoodger (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I do have a firm grasp of the guidelines, thank you. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Please show how this topic, which the article currently gives only a definition of the job title, can expand beyond this while also meeting WP:N. At best, I could see this being cleaned up, reduced, and merged into database. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if I sounded combative in my comment above - I think you are correct though, merging this (at least the cited definition) into database seems like an appropriate action. Jwoodger (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I've reverted your last edit, though, as the lack of citation does not effect a merge discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

The listed items are precisely appropriate for this article. See the entry on system administrators. Something similar is needed. The following are from the Oracle Database Administrators Guide (largest vendor of database software):

- Installing and upgrading the Database server and application tools - Allocating system storage and planning future storage requirements for the database system - Creating primary database storage structures (tablespaces) after application developers have designed an application - Creating primary objects (tables, views, indexes) once application developers have designed an application - Modifying the database structure, as necessary, from information given by application developers - Enrolling users and maintaining system security - Controlling and monitoring user access to the database - Monitoring and optimizing the performance of the database - Planning for backup and recovery of database information - Maintaining archived data on tape - Backing up and restoring the database

Each of these is the elaborated upon.

This is a six-figure position - at least for the qualified - and needs more detail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardlr (talk • contribs) 23:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Oracle is not the only database, nor is Wikipedia a job handbook. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

• I do believe this is a notable subject. I was happy to find it. I use it to help people understand what the position is, requires to be performed, etc. Also, Under education I do this job without a college degree or a certificate. I learned on the job and have been doing the job for 25+ years. Thanks for providing this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.111 (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

While SQL databases are very common, there are non-SQL databases that need administration, but do not require SQL knowledge. e.g. Intersystems Cache database — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.119.64.110 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't say these are required skills; rather the article simply talks about the skills most DBAs have. Augbog (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if there is overlap between skills and duties. Most skills are expected to translate into duties so perhaps we can combine these subsections together somehow? Augbog (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply