Thread: Re: [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:06:05 -0800 > From: Bryan Encina <bryan.encina@valleypres.org> > To: 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > > I think that is about the author of the web site, and is > > being removed. > > > > -- > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > Since the last survey on postgresql.org had almost 80% of those surveyed > wanting a standard worldwide PostgreSQL training course (and over 50% being > strongly yes), are there any forseeable future plans for standard > certification/training? > > Bryan > > I think that, in part, this goes to issues like I mentioned to someone, off-list, about a response to a query that I raised on the GENERAL list, about the "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days" book, which is advertised on the Internet, but which does not exist. The absence of that book, is unfortunate, as, from what I have seen of the Table of Contents of the MySQL equivalent, which I mention below, the MySQL book appears to be a reasonably good, structured, way to learn MySQL, and, an equivalent book for PostgreSQL; a similarly structured book, with the equivalent exercises, would, I believe, be a good way to learn PostgreSQL, in a structured way. A while ago, on (I believe) the GENERAL list, a discussion occurred about PostgreSQL certification, in which discussion, PostgreSQL certification was apparently knocked on the head. I found the discussion, by searching, using google, for "PostgreSQL certification". As I had said to the person with whom I corresponded off-list, with the knowledge that I have of database development, what I am intending to do, as the only apparent option, in all of the circumstances, is to obtain the "Teach Yourself MySQL In 21 Days" book, which does exist, work through it, then sit the MySQL certifications, which exist (MySQL 4 Core Certification and MySQL 4 Certified Professional), and then, on passing those, transfer the acquired skills and knowledge, to PostgreSQL, by working through the book, as much as possible, using PostgreSQL, and, working through available PostgreSQL books; thus, obtaining open source database development skills and certification with MySQL, and, while not formalised or certified, PostgreSQL skills. It is fairly convoluted, but appears to be the only way of getting PostgreSQL skills in a structured way, and, (kind of) related certification. From my understanding, PostgreSQL is a more powerful and more ANSI-SQL standard-compliant DBMS, than MySQL, and, than major commercial DBMS's, but PostgreSQL apparently lacks formal assessment and certification of skills in the same way that MySQL has, thus making training and certification for PostgreSQL, lacking in comparison. The MySQL certifications, are international skillset certifications, like MCAD, MCSD, MCSE, RHCE, and LPI certifications, and, from what I understand, similarly, internationally recognised. Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is that practitioners appear to be hack-programmers (I do not mean that in a derogatory way, but, in the sense of being lacking in formal training and certification in PostgreSQL skills), in the absence of formalised training and certification. I understand that, as with PostgreSQL, in the Perl community, resistance to any form of skills certification, exists. This is found by similarly searching on "Perl certification". Thus, is the existence of the title, as apparently used by many Perl programmers; JAPH - Just Another Perl Hacker. That too, has been mentioned, in the discussions about the prospect of Perl certification I am not intending to troll, or to enter into any brand flame war with this (and I hope that this message is not misconstrued as flaming or trolling, but, rather, taken as the constructive criticism as it is intended to be); however, I think that the lack of training and certification facilities such as exist for MySQL, for PostgreSQL, is a bit disappointing, and leaves the path that I intend to take, as the only option available, to get into development using PostgreSQL. I personally, believe, and, suggest, that formalised, structured, training, and, international assessment and certification, as exists and as is supposed to be being developed for MySQL, for PostgreSQL, would go a long way to increased public acceptance of PostgreSQL, and, to the maturity of PostgreSQL, and would thus lead to increased public use of PostgreSQL. (And, a good Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days book, would be good, too :) . ) My wife is a software developer, by profession. She also trains people, and has trained lecturers, in some of the development software in which she develops. However, when the issue of open source software development, such as in PostgreSQL, arises, her employer company apparently steers away from it, instead, steering toward software development, using software tools that are internationally recognised and in which certification is available, and, I believe that her employer company regards things like PostgreSQL, as the dark and murky unknown, especially in the absence of any recognised formal training and certification. It is one thing to say that PostgreSQL is big and powerful, and that it is (or, as I believe, is) the most ANSI-SQL standards-compliant DBMS, and that it is used for such major projects as (as I believe) the .org registry, but, in the absence of recognition of PostgreSQL as being backed by formal training and certification, it is difficult to obtain acceptance of PostgreSQL. But, the issue of formal and structured training and certification in PostgreSQL, is something to be decided by the PostgreSQL guru's, I believe, and, until they implement these things, we are left in the dark, and, required to do things such as travel the path that I have mentioned, via MySQL. And, it is always possible, that, in following such a path, and having obtained MySQL certification, a person may stay with MySQL, thus, the path of formalised training and certification, taking potential software developers, and, thence, potential customers, to MySQL instead of PostgreSQL. Thus, whilst, if I chose that path, it might not be any great loss, if others followed that path, and, went to MySQL instead of PostgreSQL, due to the lack of formalised training and certification of PostgreSQL skills, it would be a loss of potential usage and acceptance, by PostgreSQL, kind of like PostgreSQL shooting itself in its feet. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Although you certainly have a point that a lot of companies rely on "certification" in the one or other way, you'd have to admit that probably 80% of "certified" people have no clue what they are talking about. I met so many certified people where you could give them a problem and they have no idea of how to solve it. IMHO a certification is a fabulous way to generate money flow for the company offering the certification, it's not a way to proof skills. What most certifications lack is problem solving. The moment you can just learn it and take the test the certification is complete nonsense. Microsoft started this "certification" thing just to generate more income - there are so many MSCE's that normally a spreading virus shouldn't spread - since, you guessed it, a decent administrator would have applied patches, checked for threads, have a decent firewall etc. etc. I'm not completely against certification, however it should be real education in the first place. There are only few certifications out there that really test skills and not book knowledge. As it comes to postgresql - it's a pretty usual rdbms. No fundamentally big difference to oracle and similar systems. If you can handle oracle you shouldn't have a problem with postgresql. The issues you'll certainly encounter are usually easy to figure out via the community or the techdocs. Sure I can't change the system, but companies should start to change their way of operating. Most certifications (and even academic degrees) simply proof that you could acquire a certain amount of theoretical knowledge in a certain amount of time. It doesn't proof that you can actually apply that knowledge to real world situations. And if you look around in companies - large or small - you see the same amount of bad decisions over and over again. - From that experience I supprot the idea of making postgresql more public, but don't start a certification that basically asks for the contents of the 15 year old SQL book catching dust on some shelf. I agree that more and better documentation in a more "business" adequate way should be published. Just to do a little "flame" thing: If you learn MySQL you'll get about 10% of what postgresql can do - better head for a oracle certification. On Tuesday 09 December 2003 11:09 pm, Bret Busby wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 15:06:05 -0800 > > From: Bryan Encina <bryan.encina@valleypres.org> > > To: 'Bruce Momjian' <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > > Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > > > > I think that is about the author of the web site, and is > > > being removed. > > > > > > -- > > > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > > > > Since the last survey on postgresql.org had almost 80% of those surveyed > > wanting a standard worldwide PostgreSQL training course (and over 50% > > being strongly yes), are there any forseeable future plans for standard > > certification/training? > > > > Bryan > > I think that, in part, this goes to issues like I mentioned to someone, > off-list, about a response to a query that I raised on the GENERAL list, > about the "Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days" book, which is > advertised on the Internet, but which does not exist. > > The absence of that book, is unfortunate, as, from what I have seen of > the Table of Contents of the MySQL equivalent, which I mention below, > the MySQL book appears to be a reasonably good, structured, way to learn > MySQL, and, an equivalent book for PostgreSQL; a similarly structured > book, with the equivalent exercises, would, I believe, be a good way to > learn PostgreSQL, in a structured way. > > A while ago, on (I believe) the GENERAL list, a discussion occurred > about PostgreSQL certification, in which discussion, PostgreSQL > certification was apparently knocked on the head. I found the > discussion, by searching, using google, for "PostgreSQL certification". > > As I had said to the person with whom I corresponded off-list, with the > knowledge that I have of database development, what I am intending to > do, as the only apparent option, in all of the circumstances, is to > obtain the "Teach Yourself MySQL In 21 Days" book, which does exist, > work through it, then sit the MySQL certifications, which exist (MySQL 4 > Core Certification and MySQL 4 Certified Professional), and then, on > passing those, transfer the acquired skills and knowledge, to > PostgreSQL, by working through the book, as much as possible, using > PostgreSQL, and, working through available PostgreSQL books; thus, > obtaining open source database development skills and certification with > MySQL, and, while not formalised or certified, PostgreSQL skills. > > It is fairly convoluted, but appears to be the only way of getting > PostgreSQL skills in a structured way, and, (kind of) related > certification. > > From my understanding, PostgreSQL is a more powerful and more ANSI-SQL > standard-compliant DBMS, than MySQL, and, than major commercial DBMS's, > but PostgreSQL apparently lacks formal assessment and certification of > skills in the same way that MySQL has, thus making training and > certification for PostgreSQL, lacking in comparison. > > The MySQL certifications, are international skillset certifications, > like MCAD, MCSD, MCSE, RHCE, and LPI certifications, and, from what I > understand, similarly, internationally recognised. > > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is > that practitioners appear to be hack-programmers (I do not mean that in > a derogatory way, but, in the sense of being lacking in formal > training and certification in PostgreSQL skills), in the absence of > formalised training and certification. I understand that, as with > PostgreSQL, in the Perl community, resistance to any form of skills > certification, exists. This is found by similarly searching on "Perl > certification". Thus, is the existence of the title, as apparently used > by many Perl programmers; JAPH - Just Another Perl Hacker. That too, has > been mentioned, in the discussions about the prospect of Perl > certification > > I am not intending to troll, or to enter into any brand flame war with > this (and I hope that this message is not misconstrued as flaming or > trolling, but, rather, taken as the constructive criticism as it is > intended to be); however, I think that the lack of training and > certification facilities such as exist for MySQL, for PostgreSQL, is a > bit disappointing, and leaves the path that I intend to take, as the > only option available, to get into development using PostgreSQL. > > I personally, believe, and, suggest, that formalised, structured, > training, and, international assessment and certification, as exists and > as is supposed to be being developed for MySQL, for PostgreSQL, would go > a long way to increased public acceptance of PostgreSQL, and, to the > maturity of PostgreSQL, and would thus lead to increased public use of > PostgreSQL. (And, a good Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days book, > would be good, too :) . ) > > My wife is a software developer, by profession. She also trains people, > and has trained lecturers, in some of the development software in which > she develops. > > However, when the issue of open source software development, such as in > PostgreSQL, arises, her employer company apparently steers away from it, > instead, steering toward software development, using software tools that > are internationally recognised and in which certification is available, > and, I believe that her employer company regards things like PostgreSQL, > as the dark and murky unknown, especially in the absence of any > recognised formal training and certification. > > It is one thing to say that PostgreSQL is big and powerful, and that it > is (or, as I believe, is) the most ANSI-SQL standards-compliant DBMS, > and that it is used for such major projects as (as I believe) the .org > registry, but, in the absence of recognition of PostgreSQL as being > backed by formal training and certification, it is difficult to obtain > acceptance of PostgreSQL. > > But, the issue of formal and structured training and certification in > PostgreSQL, is something to be decided by the PostgreSQL guru's, I > believe, and, until they implement these things, we are left in the > dark, and, required to do things such as travel the path that I have > mentioned, via MySQL. And, it is always possible, that, in > following such a path, and having obtained MySQL certification, a person > may stay with MySQL, thus, the path of formalised training and > certification, taking potential software developers, and, thence, > potential customers, to MySQL instead of PostgreSQL. > > Thus, whilst, if I chose that path, it might not be any great loss, if > others followed that path, and, went to MySQL instead of PostgreSQL, due > to the lack of formalised training and certification of PostgreSQL > skills, it would be a loss of potential usage and acceptance, by > PostgreSQL, kind of like PostgreSQL shooting itself in its feet. - -- UC - -- Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066 Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States Fax: +1 650 872 2417 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/1svcjqGXBvRToM4RAuHMAJ9L80yiMMuHPcT7Yn6AA82Aa5KQIACeOGAy FaVqXD3HaXsq6c/jIAn7BW4= =ZG8O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training and certification costs money. Some of us don't do this as a job at all, some are in relatively small companies doing support/hosting and some are in unrelated fields and just use it. The first and third group aren't generally going to run training, it's outside what they do. The second group generally either doesn't have the money to do it, or at least needs it to be truly obviously profitable before they can really consider it. A small company that puts down a few months to set up training and then doesn't get enough people to break even goes away, it's a pretty big risk.
On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:03, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL
> > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in
> > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is
>
> I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training
> and certification costs money. Some of us don't do this as a job at all,
> some are in relatively small companies doing support/hosting and some are
> in unrelated fields and just use it. The first and third group aren't
> generally going to run training, it's outside what they do. The second
> group generally either doesn't have the money to do it, or at least needs
> it to be truly obviously profitable before they can really consider it. A
> small company that puts down a few months to set up training and then
> doesn't get enough people to break even goes away, it's a pretty big risk.
>
Please be aware there are several companies that do provide training,
check the main website for examples. Furthermore Bruce Momjian does a
semi-annual training class himself, and has mentioned that people are
not exactly beating a path to his door. Just because the
training/certification is not centralized and dictated doesn't mean it
is not available.
Furthermore if you're really interested in learning about databases and
want some type of certification, I'd strongly recommend learning oracle
or even m$ before going to my$ql, both are more fundamentally oriented
toward postgresql. Actually I'd earmark your training dollars for
something like the Open Source conference, which usually provides a good
chunk of information.
As far as books go, I think the best book on the market right now is
probably Korry Douglas' book "PostgreSQL", but I think you'll find most
people here recommend you read books like SQL for Smarties (Celko),
Practical Issues in Database Management (Pascal), or An Introduction to
Database Systems (Date). Much to the chagrin of Herr Fabian, we aren't
just here to push a product, we want users to be educated.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote: > Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) > From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> > To: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> > Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > > > > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is > > I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training > and certification costs money. Some of us don't do this as a job at all, > some are in relatively small companies doing support/hosting and some are > in unrelated fields and just use it. The first and third group aren't > generally going to run training, it's outside what they do. The second > group generally either doesn't have the money to do it, or at least needs > it to be truly obviously profitable before they can really consider it. A > small company that puts down a few months to set up training and then > doesn't get enough people to break even goes away, it's a pretty big risk. > > The resistance to which I referred, is exemplified in the discussion that I cited, from the google search. cf the thread "PostgreSQL certification", started by the query posted by Diogo Biazus, dated 24 October 2003, as found from the list archives. I was slightly incorrect, however, in that that thread was on the ADVOCACY list, not the GENERAL list as I had previously mentioned. However, it would have been found, by using the google seartch that I cited in my previous posting. Only four results to the google search, were displayed; the PostgreSQL mailing list discussion that I cited, being the first displayed result. The basis for the resistance, was apparently not a cost or time based opposition, but, opposition to certification itself; opposition to the concepts of certification and standardisation of skills assessment. Reading the messages of that thread, would lead to a better understanding of the opposition to certification. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes:
> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote:
>> Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL
>> training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in
>> the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is
> I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training
> and certification costs money.
I think there *would* be resistance to labeling anything as "official
PostgreSQL certification", mainly because of the problem of who gets
to decide which things are "official". No one will object if companies
set up training and skills-testing programs about PostgreSQL, they just
can't claim to be officially blessed by the project. As a comparison
point, Red Hat's RHCE certifications for Linux seem to be pretty well
respected, but no one thinks they are officially blessed by Linus or
anything like that. Red Hat is the only name standing behind them.
(Disclaimer: I have no reason to think that Red Hat might offer any
such certification program for Postgres in the foreseeable future.
Too bad.)
MySQL is more able than we are to set up "official" training and
certification programs, because there isn't any doubt who owns the
right to do so: MySQL AB. But whether having one company control the
project is a net benefit is pretty dubious IMHO.
regards, tom lane
> MySQL is more able than we are to set up "official" training and > certification programs, because there isn't any doubt who owns the > right to do so: MySQL AB. But whether having one company control the > project is a net benefit is pretty dubious IMHO. If it ain't broke...
On 10 Dec 2003, Robert Treat wrote: > Date: 10 Dec 2003 14:06:45 -0500 > From: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> > To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> > Cc: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>, pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, > "pgsql-general@postgresql.org" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 12:03, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > > > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > > > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is > > > > I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training > > and certification costs money. Some of us don't do this as a job at all, > > some are in relatively small companies doing support/hosting and some are > > in unrelated fields and just use it. The first and third group aren't > > generally going to run training, it's outside what they do. The second > > group generally either doesn't have the money to do it, or at least needs > > it to be truly obviously profitable before they can really consider it. A > > small company that puts down a few months to set up training and then > > doesn't get enough people to break even goes away, it's a pretty big risk. > > > > Please be aware there are several companies that do provide training, > check the main website for examples. Furthermore Bruce Momjian does a > semi-annual training class himself, and has mentioned that people are > not exactly beating a path to his door. Just because the > training/certification is not centralized and dictated doesn't mean it > is not available. > > Furthermore if you're really interested in learning about databases and > want some type of certification, I'd strongly recommend learning oracle > or even m$ before going to my$ql, both are more fundamentally oriented > toward postgresql. Actually I'd earmark your training dollars for > something like the Open Source conference, which usually provides a good > chunk of information. > > As far as books go, I think the best book on the market right now is > probably Korry Douglas' book "PostgreSQL", but I think you'll find most > people here recommend you read books like SQL for Smarties (Celko), > Practical Issues in Database Management (Pascal), or An Introduction to > Database Systems (Date). Much to the chagrin of Herr Fabian, we aren't > just here to push a product, we want users to be educated. > > > Robert Treat > Regarding the PostgreSQL training that is provided by companies, a problem with that, as it exists, is that, insofar as I am aware, that training is not standardised, standardisation of training, being a probable requirement of formal certification and standardised skills assessment. Another problem, is that the companies, and, Bruce Momjian, provide their individual training courses, but, they are where they are, and I am where I am, and, there are interested people, scattered over the world. Thus, Bruce Momjian, for example, may be a good trainer, but, as I am here, and he is wherever he is, "and ne'er the twain shall meet". Here in Perth (Armadale is a suburb of Perth), Western Australia, for example, there are institutions that provide training and certification, in the RHCE, LPI, MCAD, MCSD, MCSE, etc, courses, which are standardised courses, which, as I have previously mentioned, involve standardised skillset training and assessments. But, this is a (relatively) small city, of only about a million or so people, in a remote corner of the world, and, we have no dedicated companies providing PostgreSQL training, which appears (from what I have seen so far) to be available only in the USA. Thus, for those training and certification courses, that I have mentioned as being available here, they are available to me, and, likely, to most (if not everyone) on these lists, and, they should be at the same standards and levels of competency, and have the same course content, regardless of location, due to the standardisation of those courses and certifications. But, the PostgreSQL training, insofar as I am ware, is both not standardised, and, completely localised. Thus, if PostgreSQL training is available in any form (as in classes or courses), where a person is, who is on one of these lists, another person on these lists (such as me and others here), might not be able to trundle off to Salt Lake City or New York for the day, to attend such training courses, and, thus, the training courses are unavailable, and, using those two locations, the training that is available in Salt Lake City, may be different, in content (as in topics), and, in quality, and, in level of competency. So, for example, in Salt Lake City, a person might have only PostgreSQL training courses available, that involve installing and configuring PostgreSQL, in New York, a person might have courses that involve developing web applications using PostgreSQL, and, wherever he is, Bruce Momjian might offer courses that result in becoming a PostgreSQL Guru. These are reasons that formalised, structured, standardised, training and certifications, could make it much more accessible, and, simpler, to obtain recognisable PostgreSQL skills, for which accreditation and thence formal recognition, could be obtained. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Quoting Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 09:03:56 -0800 (PST) > > From: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> > > To: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> > > Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Bryan Encina wrote: > > > > > > Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > > > training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > > > the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is > > > > I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training > > and certification costs money. Some of us don't do this as a job at all, > > some are in relatively small companies doing support/hosting and some are > > in unrelated fields and just use it. The first and third group aren't > > generally going to run training, it's outside what they do. The second > > group generally either doesn't have the money to do it, or at least needs > > it to be truly obviously profitable before they can really consider it. A > > small company that puts down a few months to set up training and then > > doesn't get enough people to break even goes away, it's a pretty big risk. > > > > > > The resistance to which I referred, is exemplified in the discussion > that I cited, from the google search. > > cf the thread "PostgreSQL certification", started by the query posted > by Diogo Biazus, dated 24 October 2003, as found from the list archives. > > I was slightly incorrect, however, in that that thread was on the > ADVOCACY list, not the GENERAL list as I had previously mentioned. > However, it would have been found, by using the google seartch that I > cited in my previous posting. Only four results to the google search, > were displayed; the PostgreSQL mailing list discussion that I cited, > being the first displayed result. > > The basis for the resistance, was apparently not a cost or time based > opposition, but, opposition to certification itself; opposition to the > concepts of certification and standardisation of skills assessment. > > Reading the messages of that thread, would lead to a better > understanding of the opposition to certification. > > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .............. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > .................................................... Bret, I think what the real religious argument here is that many, many people feel "skills assessment" should NOT be linked to a product. It should in fact be linked to the underlying material a product is designed to manipulate. If someone is more of an academic, I seriously doubt that they are going to seek certification in a product. 9 out of 10 times, someone like that is going to be able to pick up a product manual and be off and running. However, if you are new to the feild, 18-36 months at a tech school is going to be more appealing than 48 to 60 months at a college. Lets not forget that human being want what they want when they want it. Sooner for *most* people is better, especially where money is involved, The true motivation for certification is/was marketing. Its just a different piece of paper- some people go to traditional educational institutions and some people chase certification for these newer tech schools. Its all in the name of being able to market oneself. In one case however, education is product neutral which means you have a strong base knowledge ready to be applied. So you build product knowledge from there. In the other case, you learn products and in doing that you tend towards having a strong base knowledge. Of course, products also come and go and change much more frequently than the base knowlege. I've instructed at the collegiate level and at a tech school so I'm not gonna hate on either approach. What I've stressed is that a person should choose for themselves which make the most sense. Like always the "best" thing is not black or white its somewhat in the grey. Corporations are definitely starting to understand this. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com> writes: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > >> Unfortunately, the result of the lack of formal, structured, PostgreSQL > >> training and certification, and the apparent resistance to these, in > >> the PostgreSQL community, is that, like the Perl people, the result is > > > I don't think there's a resistance to them except that setting up training > > and certification costs money. > > I think there *would* be resistance to labeling anything as "official > PostgreSQL certification", mainly because of the problem of who gets > to decide which things are "official". No one will object if companies If we wanted something like that, it'd presumably end up being the community's responsibility to be doing some level of oversight. Possibly initial test/class material creation would be done that way too. I don't really think we have people that could put in the effort necessary to build and then maintain such a system at the moment though, but I'm not sure that such a thing would necessarily be impossible. > (Disclaimer: I have no reason to think that Red Hat might offer any > such certification program for Postgres in the foreseeable future. > Too bad.) It is, because they're probably the closest group we have to being able to offer a reasonably large scale centralized training/testing program.
Bret Busby wrote: > Regarding the PostgreSQL training that is provided by companies, a > problem with that, as it exists, is that, insofar as I am aware, that > training is not standardised, "Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some of these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar form repeatedly in different locations, but that is not "standardized" in the sense you propose. Companies and institutions are free to start their own training programs for PostgreSQL like that and hope they succeed, but no one has felt like it yet. > But, this is a (relatively) small city, of only about a million or so > people, in a remote corner of the world, and, we have no dedicated > companies providing PostgreSQL training, which appears (from what I > have seen so far) to be available only in the USA. Certainly, PostgreSQL training has been know to happen in a large number of different locations. And some people have been known to travel large distances to provide custom training. Just ask if you're interested. > Thus, for those training and certification courses, that I have > mentioned as being available here, they are available to me, and, > likely, to most (if not everyone) on these lists, and, they should be > at the same standards and levels of competency, and have the same > course content, regardless of location, due to the standardisation of > those courses and certifications. But, the PostgreSQL training, > insofar as I am ware, is both not standardised, and, completely > localised. It is only possible to offer "worldwide" "standardized" training programs if some organization operates worldwide and can run the show. Such organizations don't exist for PostgreSQL at this time. That is the problem. The PostgreSQL project is never going to organize standardized training, because it doesn't have the power to organize or run it. The other examples you cited don't work that way either. They are run by companies. But the companies can only reach as far as their resources allow. Another point is that standard training doesn't really make you a lot of money unless you scale really well. It's most interesting if you provide custom training, or if you expect follow-up jobs from it. Most people I've heard of do PostgreSQL training for these reasons.
>"Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of >companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some of >these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar form >repeatedly in different locations, but that is not "standardized" in >the sense you propose. > This is not exactly true. In the marketplace the Red Hat Linux certification (at least in the US) is pretty much conisidered the standard. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC - S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming, shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
> > >> "Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of >> companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some >> of these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar >> form repeatedly in different locations, but that is not >> "standardized" in the sense you propose. > > > This is not exactly true. In the marketplace the Red Hat Linux > certification (at least in the US) is pretty much conisidered the > standard. This makes Bret's point for him. Red Hat invested in providing training. It is just a de-facto standard, nothing more. ...john
I think though that there is an opportunity, though, for us to perhaps work together in developing a Postgresql training base curriculum. We can pool some resources and perhaps develop at least a list of the things which ought to be covered. Perhaps this can lead to books on the subject, etc. I am thinking that an open curriculum might be something very helpful particularly for novices. It doesn't have to lead to certification, but it could enable third parties (including Brainbench) to build certifications that they could charge for. I see the potential for the development of an open curriculum (at least in outline form) as being something that could be an immense tool for PostgreSQL advocacy. Whether we choose to make something of this curriculum or not is up to us, and if there is interest, I will start a gborg project for it. Interested parties should let me know. If certification of curriculums is needed down the road, I think that it would be better to make it a group effort and form some sort of non-profit consortium of the contributors. But at the moment, I think it is more important to make something available. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 04:39, Keith C. Perry wrote: > I think what the real religious argument here is that many, many people feel > "skills assessment" should NOT be linked to a product. It should in fact be > linked to the underlying material a product is designed to manipulate. > > If someone is more of an academic, I seriously doubt that they are going to seek > certification in a product. 9 out of 10 times, someone like that is going to be > able to pick up a product manual and be off and running. However, if you are > new to the feild, 18-36 months at a tech school is going to be more appealing > than 48 to 60 months at a college. Lets not forget that human being want what > they want when they want it. Sooner for *most* people is better, especially > where money is involved, Agreed. However-- there is a push in the IT world (much resisted here) to try to make sysadmin/DBA positions more of a technician-oriented rather than academic oriented. The idea here is that it reduces IT costs (perhaps, though, at the expense of returns). > > The true motivation for certification is/was marketing. Its just a different > piece of paper- some people go to traditional educational institutions and some > people chase certification for these newer tech schools. Its all in the name of > being able to market oneself. Exactly, and this is a reason why we SHOULD look at moving in this direction. > > In one case however, education is product neutral which means you have a strong > base knowledge ready to be applied. So you build product knowledge from there. > In the other case, you learn products and in doing that you tend towards having > a strong base knowledge. Of course, products also come and go and change much > more frequently than the base knowlege. > I don't disagree. But the advocacy issue is still there. I do not think that we can/should try to develop certifications at this time. However, I think that it would be a good idea, provided there is sufficient interest, in pooling resources to develop a general well-rounded curriculum base from which other curriculums could be built. Perhaps this will lead towards certification. I think that we should work with the advocacy team, etc. and build on a base of product-neutral information. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Before I begin, I think that most of us agree on the following points: 1: The PostgreSQL project is not in a position at the moment to bless any attempt to create an official curriculum or certification. 2: The idea of patterning PostgreSQL certifications on Microsoft exams is patently offensive as a paper PostgreSQL Certified DBA could do a whole lot more damage than a paper MCSE. 3: We are all for leveraging as many advocacy tools as possible. 4: It is not easy to get PostgreSQL-specific training at the moment for many people on this list. On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 04:49, Stephan Szabo wrote: > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > I think there *would* be resistance to labeling anything as "official > > PostgreSQL certification", mainly because of the problem of who gets > > to decide which things are "official". No one will object if companies > > If we wanted something like that, it'd presumably end up being the > community's responsibility to be doing some level of oversight. Possibly > initial test/class material creation would be done that way too. I don't > really think we have people that could put in the effort necessary to > build and then maintain such a system at the moment though, but I'm not > sure that such a thing would necessarily be impossible. > Obviously, it is impossible to set up an official curriculum/certification at this stage. But I still think it could be done in a gradual way. Here is how we *could* do it. Note that this is NOT an overnight fix and will probably take years or decades to get to the point where we have community approved standard certification. We may never even get there. I think that is OK and things that are worth doing are worth doing well and a graduated approach will mean that there is some benefit to be had well before we get to the end-game. Here is a clearer picture of what I am proposing: 1: The development of a community curriculum project officially separate from the PostgreSQL project, but working closely with the PostgreSQL advocacy community. This would lead to: 2: The development of a community approved curriculum outline. The outline would not specify a temporal but rather a logical order covering all topics the community feels must be covered in order to be considered proficient with PostgreSQL. Much of the information could be product-inspecific. This would lead to: 3: The development of curriculums derivative of the outline by members and third parties. It could also lead to online tutorials, references (above and beyond the Postgrsql documentation). At some point a non-profit organization may need to be formed to manage the ability of others to claim that their curriculums complied with the outline. Third parties, such as Brainbench may be persuaded to offer some certifications of this sort as well. 4: Eventually such an organization may wish to create a certification process for PostgreSQL skill. This would likely include an exam similar to the CCIE or RHCE-- a theory written test, an installation/database design hands-on test, and a troubleshooting/fix this install hands on test. This would likely be a LONG way away and would be predicated on having a large community of trainers and examiners around the world. I think that it is WAY to early to be contemplating creating an official PostgreSQL certification. But it is not to early to start laying the groundwork for community-maintained curriculum outlines, etc. that can be extremely useful as an advocacy tool. And if the PostgreSQL project wanted to bless such an effort as being official, I think that would be great. It is not, strictly speaking, necessary however. > > (Disclaimer: I have no reason to think that Red Hat might offer any > > such certification program for Postgres in the foreseeable future. > > Too bad.) > It is, because they're probably the closest group we have to being able to > offer a reasonably large scale centralized training/testing program. > Not to mention: The RHCE is a good exam because it tests hands-on skill rather than the ability to pass multiple-guess tests. It is expensive and when I get a chance, I will likely take it. As a footnote-- when I worked at Microsoft, I was required to pass a certain number of MCP exams every year, so I have a reasonable feel for what is wrong with that system, but also how it has helped Microsoft continue to build market share in the server market. Certifications and well thought-out curriculums ARE important advocacy tools and they also help companies reduce training costs, and though whether this results in a net benefit is not clear, it tends to be a successful marketing strategy. One thing I noticed in the MCP exams that I took was that most of them were simply multiple-guess and many of them served either to point out the flaws in the test designer's mind or the OS (NDA prohibits providing examples, but the NT4 Server in the Enterprise is a test that comes to mind). There was, however, one well designed exam-- the IIS 4 exam simulated actual hands-on problems featuring a functional MMC. I was very disappointed that I didn't see these sorts of questions in later MCP exams. I found it amusing how it was often ranked the hardest exam simply because the hands-on format was not conducive towards the "memorize the answers and/or textbook" approach. The same hands-on approach has been a strength in the written exams in the LPIC exams. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>: > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 04:39, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > I think what the real religious argument here is that many, many people > feel > > "skills assessment" should NOT be linked to a product. It should in fact > be > > linked to the underlying material a product is designed to manipulate. > > > > If someone is more of an academic, I seriously doubt that they are going to > seek > > certification in a product. 9 out of 10 times, someone like that is going > to be > > able to pick up a product manual and be off and running. However, if you > are > > new to the feild, 18-36 months at a tech school is going to be more > appealing > > than 48 to 60 months at a college. Lets not forget that human being want > what > > they want when they want it. Sooner for *most* people is better, > especially > > where money is involved, > > Agreed. However-- there is a push in the IT world (much resisted here) > to try to make sysadmin/DBA positions more of a technician-oriented > rather than academic oriented. The idea here is that it reduces IT > costs (perhaps, though, at the expense of returns). I think it just the opposite- or perhaps better said, its starting to chance. I think many companies have learned that a piece of paper is just that- especially in the case of certs. This is not to say that there are exceptions but lets face it, it really comes down to what a person has actually done. The change I'm seeing is that the decision making folks are more often asking "what have you done and how can we confirm" instead of "what are you certified/degreed in and can we see the paper" > > > > The true motivation for certification is/was marketing. Its just a > different > > piece of paper- some people go to traditional educational institutions and > some > > people chase certification for these newer tech schools. Its all in the > name of > > being able to market oneself. > > Exactly, and this is a reason why we SHOULD look at moving in this > direction. The beauty of PostgreSQL, Linux, Apache et al, is that there is no singular concept of "should". Its a worldwide community and there are going to be many paths to a successful marketing campaign. As such the only "should" criteria to me is that we SHOULD respect all methods equally. > > In one case however, education is product neutral which means you have a > strong > > base knowledge ready to be applied. So you build product knowledge from > there. > > In the other case, you learn products and in doing that you tend towards > having > > a strong base knowledge. Of course, products also come and go and change > much > > more frequently than the base knowlege. > > > I don't disagree. But the advocacy issue is still there. > > I do not think that we can/should try to develop certifications at this > time. However, I think that it would be a good idea, provided there is > sufficient interest, in pooling resources to develop a general > well-rounded curriculum base from which other curriculums could be > built. Perhaps this will lead towards certification. I think that we > should work with the advocacy team, etc. and build on a base of > product-neutral information. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers Now thats a very important point and something to consider- would certifcation help advocate PG and thus lead to an increase in market share. If you look at the Red Hat example that Tom cited I think its unquestionably yes. Though I do not use personally use Red Hat, I do have to say even before they offered certification they had at least achieved enough momentum to have people consider Linux. Their achievements along with some others have helped OSS become more accepted. That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is various distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red Hat is NOT true. Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux these days in the mainstream. With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" so once the ball really gets rolling, its going to pick up speed quickly. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com>: > Before I begin, I think that most of us agree on the following points: > > 1: The PostgreSQL project is not in a position at the moment to bless > any attempt to create an official curriculum or certification. > > 2: The idea of patterning PostgreSQL certifications on Microsoft exams > is patently offensive as a paper PostgreSQL Certified DBA could do a > whole lot more damage than a paper MCSE. > > 3: We are all for leveraging as many advocacy tools as possible. > > 4: It is not easy to get PostgreSQL-specific training at the moment for > many people on this list. I totally agree with 1 - 3 but I don't understand what you mean in 4. Can you explain further? > On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 04:49, Stephan Szabo wrote: > > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > I think there *would* be resistance to labeling anything as "official > > > PostgreSQL certification", mainly because of the problem of who gets > > > to decide which things are "official". No one will object if companies > > > > If we wanted something like that, it'd presumably end up being the > > community's responsibility to be doing some level of oversight. Possibly > > initial test/class material creation would be done that way too. I don't > > really think we have people that could put in the effort necessary to > > build and then maintain such a system at the moment though, but I'm not > > sure that such a thing would necessarily be impossible. > > > Obviously, it is impossible to set up an official > curriculum/certification at this stage. But I still think it could be > done in a gradual way. Here is how we *could* do it. Note that this is > NOT an overnight fix and will probably take years or decades to get to > the point where we have community approved standard certification. We > may never even get there. I think that is OK and things that are worth > doing are worth doing well and a graduated approach will mean that there > is some benefit to be had well before we get to the end-game. > > Here is a clearer picture of what I am proposing: > > 1: The development of a community curriculum project officially > separate from the PostgreSQL project, but working closely with the > PostgreSQL advocacy community. This would lead to: > > 2: The development of a community approved curriculum outline. The > outline would not specify a temporal but rather a logical order covering > all topics the community feels must be covered in order to be considered > proficient with PostgreSQL. Much of the information could be > product-inspecific. This would lead to: > > 3: The development of curriculums derivative of the outline by members > and third parties. It could also lead to online tutorials, references > (above and beyond the Postgrsql documentation). At some point a > non-profit organization may need to be formed to manage the ability of > others to claim that their curriculums complied with the outline. Third > parties, such as Brainbench may be persuaded to offer some > certifications of this sort as well. > > 4: Eventually such an organization may wish to create a certification > process for PostgreSQL skill. This would likely include an exam similar > to the CCIE or RHCE-- a theory written test, an installation/database > design hands-on test, and a troubleshooting/fix this install hands on > test. This would likely be a LONG way away and would be predicated on > having a large community of trainers and examiners around the world. Ok, I see what you're trying to do. In looking at this it occurs to me that one of the way to aid in this effort is through more tech documents. For instance, I have asked before what is the recommended procedure or stategy for recovering a database that has "crashed". Something like that is wide open (and might not even be the correct language) but several tech notes addressing specific scenarios would not only aid in actually helping someone but would also document real situation that could then be tested on. Extending that scenario to other area would build a nice library/knowledge base for the community which was be more formalize and more efficient that searching through the newsgroups. <other stuff deleted> > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Keith C. Perry wrote: > That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is > various distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red > Hat is NOT true. Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux > these days in the mainstream. With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" > so once the ball really gets rolling, its going to pick up speed > quickly. Well, we're moving more into a direction where PostgreSQL is just a "kernel" and you have to look around and search the other applications yourself, such as language bindings, GUI tools, etc. This trend has both advantages and disadvantages, but providing comprehensive information through any means is becoming more of a challenge. -- Peter Eisentraut Microsoft Certified Solitaire Player
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is > > various distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red > > Hat is NOT true. Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux > > these days in the mainstream. With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" > > so once the ball really gets rolling, its going to pick up speed > > quickly. > > Well, we're moving more into a direction where PostgreSQL is just a > "kernel" and you have to look around and search the other applications > yourself, such as language bindings, GUI tools, etc. This trend has > both advantages and disadvantages, but providing comprehensive > information through any means is becoming more of a challenge. IMHO, "promoting" software should be a function on the web site, and not including it as part of the distribution ... is there an open source distro of something like freshmeat that we could put up (so that we don't have to 'yet again recreate the wheel')? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
> Ok, I see what you're trying to do. In looking at this it occurs to me that one > of the way to aid in this effort is through more tech documents. For instance, > I have asked before what is the recommended procedure or stategy for recovering > a database that has "crashed". Something like that is wide open (and might not > even be the correct language) but several tech notes addressing specific > scenarios would not only aid in actually helping someone but would also document > real situation that could then be tested on. Extending that scenario to other > area would build a nice library/knowledge base for the community which was be > more formalize and more efficient that searching through the newsgroups. It think this would be great not because I want some sort of certification but rather because it would be nice to have a nice organized way of learning (or teaching a new employee or something) both basic and advanced postgres features. rg
John Gibson wrote: > > > > > >> "Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of > >> companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some > >> of these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar > >> form repeatedly in different locations, but that is not > >> "standardized" in the sense you propose. > > > > > > This is not exactly true. In the marketplace the Red Hat Linux > > certification (at least in the US) is pretty much considered the > > standard. > > This makes Bret's point for him. Red Hat invested in providing > training. It is just a de-facto standard, nothing more. Imagine if Linus or the Linux kernel guys tried to standardize Linux training --- it would be a mess. Also, though lots of people want training, seems that want _free_ training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta classes, that's for sure. I give classes at many conferences around the world too, and I get usually 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. Maybe they want me to come to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is cooking for dinner before I decide. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Chris Travers wrote: > I think though that there is an opportunity, though, for us to perhaps > work together in developing a Postgresql training base curriculum. We > can pool some resources and perhaps develop at least a list of the > things which ought to be covered. Perhaps this can lead to books on the > subject, etc. I am thinking that an open curriculum might be something > very helpful particularly for novices. It doesn't have to lead to > certification, but it could enable third parties (including Brainbench) > to build certifications that they could charge for. All my class presentations are on my home page --- the only thing that isn't there is the exercises. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 02:04, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > > Agreed. However-- there is a push in the IT world (much resisted here) > > to try to make sysadmin/DBA positions more of a technician-oriented > > rather than academic oriented. The idea here is that it reduces IT > > costs (perhaps, though, at the expense of returns). > > I think it just the opposite- or perhaps better said, its starting to chance. I > think many companies have learned that a piece of paper is just that- especially > in the case of certs. This is not to say that there are exceptions but lets > face it, it really comes down to what a person has actually done. The change > I'm seeing is that the decision making folks are more often asking "what have > you done and how can we confirm" instead of "what are you certified/degreed in > and can we see the paper" > I still think that there is a movement in many businesses to see the role of DBA, sysadmin, etc. as that of a glorified technician rather than a really serious professional. Certifications are a part of it, but it is a broader pattern. This is especially true of the market of mid-size businesses. The larger businesses tend to have the lower ranks manned by glorified techs, while the upper ranks are managed by the more academic types. I presume that your experience is different, and I hope you are right. I personally thing that databases are so important to a business that they should really look at doing it right. > > The beauty of PostgreSQL, Linux, Apache et al, is that there is no singular > concept of "should". Its a worldwide community and there are going to be many > paths to a successful marketing campaign. As such the only "should" criteria to > me is that we SHOULD respect all methods equally. > OK. I misspoke. It is easy to think of a community as a monolithic entity... Perhaps more appropriate would have been: This is why moving toward eventual training documents and possibly eventual certifications is important for the PostgreSQL community. > > Now thats a very important point and something to consider- would certifcation > help advocate PG and thus lead to an increase in market share. If you look at > the Red Hat example that Tom cited I think its unquestionably yes. Though I > do not use personally use Red Hat, I do have to say even before they offered > certification they had at least achieved enough momentum to have people > consider Linux. Their achievements along with some others have helped OSS > become more accepted. > It took nearly 5 years for RedHat to get to the point where they were offering the certification (as a major entity). There is NO way we can move this fast even if we all try, provided we want to do it right. > That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is various > distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red Hat is NOT true. > Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux these days in the mainstream. > With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" so once the ball really gets rolling, > its going to pick up speed quickly. Actually my idea is to launch something more like the Linux Documentation Project but with more structure. Eventually, major parties involved may be brought together and help develop full-featured curriculums, certify third-party certs as complying with the features and/or developing their own certification. This would be a long-term project and would not lead to instant certifications, curriculums, etc. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 21:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Imagine if Linus or the Linux kernel guys tried to standardize Linux > training --- it would be a mess. > Exactly, but that is what community is for :-) > Also, though lots of people want training, seems that want _free_ > training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta classes, that's for sure. I > give classes at many conferences around the world too, and I get usually > 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. Maybe they want me to come > to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is cooking for dinner > before I decide. :-) I guess I see this from a different angle. The problem is not only because people only want free training, but because the PostgreSQL community by and large has a very small novice component. Most people who turn to PostgreSQL understand what it is they are looking for and have experience with other relational database systems. As a result these people (myself included) can easily pick up the manual and run with it. Compared to that of MySQL, our community is sparse, widely disperse, and MUCH more experienced/professional. This puts a damper on the training unless we can create a larger interest in the database among novices. This is partly what the job of the advocacy community is. But really it crosses all boundaries. I am wondering if you are interested in helping with some sort of skills outline project-- what skills we as a community think are important for someone to claim basic mastery over the database manager. Not as if you don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least as a mentor. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Quoting Rick Gigger <rick@alpinenetworking.com>: > > Ok, I see what you're trying to do. In looking at this it occurs to me > that one > > of the way to aid in this effort is through more tech documents. For > instance, > > I have asked before what is the recommended procedure or stategy for > recovering > > a database that has "crashed". Something like that is wide open (and > might not > > even be the correct language) but several tech notes addressing specific > > scenarios would not only aid in actually helping someone but would also > document > > real situation that could then be tested on. Extending that scenario to > other > > area would build a nice library/knowledge base for the community which was > be > > more formalize and more efficient that searching through the newsgroups. > > It think this would be great not because I want some sort of certification > but rather because it would be nice to have a nice organized way of learning > (or teaching a new employee or something) both basic and advanced postgres > features. > > rg > I think you summed up exactly what I was trying to get out. We can put all the material together that someone would use to be certified but there should not be an emphasis on it. After reading/studying a training manual or guide, it should be completely a personal choice. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Quoting Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>: > John Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > > >> "Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of > > >> companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some > > >> of these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar > > >> form repeatedly in different locations, but that is not > > >> "standardized" in the sense you propose. > > > > > > > > > This is not exactly true. In the marketplace the Red Hat Linux > > > certification (at least in the US) is pretty much considered the > > > standard. > > > > This makes Bret's point for him. Red Hat invested in providing > > training. It is just a de-facto standard, nothing more. > > Imagine if Linus or the Linux kernel guys tried to standardize Linux > training --- it would be a mess. > > Also, though lots of people want training, seems that want _free_ > training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta classes, that's for sure. I > give classes at many conferences around the world too, and I get usually > 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. Maybe they want me to come > to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is cooking for dinner > before I decide. :-) > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > LOL, Bruce tell you what- I'm a pretty good cook. Maybe I'll talk to Drexel about a catered certification event! That definitely be *bam* taking it up a notch!! -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Chris, Your persistence and your ideas suggest that you have something to contribute in this area. Why not sign up on the pgsql-advocacy list, and carry your ideas forward there? That would be an appropriate forum for this kind of discussion. The arguments on both sides (if there are only two sides) are strong, which is why this is such a difficult problem. But I see some promise of the emergence from further discussion of some workable formula. The Wise Heads have been convinced to change their minds before, and can be again. Best of luck! --- Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 21:40, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Imagine if Linus or the Linux kernel guys tried to > standardize Linux > > training --- it would be a mess. > > > Exactly, but that is what community is for :-) > > > Also, though lots of people want training, seems > that want _free_ > > training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta > classes, that's for sure. I > > give classes at many conferences around the world > too, and I get usually > > 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. > Maybe they want me to come > > to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is > cooking for dinner > > before I decide. :-) > > I guess I see this from a different angle. > > The problem is not only because people only want > free training, but > because the PostgreSQL community by and large has a > very small novice > component. Most people who turn to PostgreSQL > understand what it is > they are looking for and have experience with other > relational database > systems. As a result these people (myself included) > can easily pick up > the manual and run with it. > > Compared to that of MySQL, our community is sparse, > widely disperse, and > MUCH more experienced/professional. This puts a > damper on the training > unless we can create a larger interest in the > database among novices. > This is partly what the job of the advocacy > community is. But really it > crosses all boundaries. > > I am wondering if you are interested in helping with > some sort of skills > outline project-- what skills we as a community > think are important for > someone to claim basic mastery over the database > manager. Not as if you > don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least > as a mentor. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
Quoting Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>: > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is > > various distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red > > Hat is NOT true. Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux > > these days in the mainstream. With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" > > so once the ball really gets rolling, its going to pick up speed > > quickly. > > Well, we're moving more into a direction where PostgreSQL is just a > "kernel" and you have to look around and search the other applications > yourself, such as language bindings, GUI tools, etc. This trend has > both advantages and disadvantages, but providing comprehensive > information through any means is becoming more of a challenge. > > -- > Peter Eisentraut > Microsoft Certified Solitaire Player > *laff* so you're an MCSP huh? I might have to use that one Peter- I wondered some time ago about why my Pg.pm module was no longer included in the release and of course I was soon introducted to gborg which I thought was a great idea. It didn't occur to me that it was a conscious direction that PG was talking. "Kernelizing" PG would definitely help advocate/market long term. Talking some familiar examples. Today Linux runs on everything- embedded this and embedded that. I almost shed a tear when I say it on an Ipod! Same thing with Apache which is probably the next great OSS success story. Some tech companies that survived the late 90's realized they could create products because of all the OSS that was already out there. I've reviewed so many things in the last two years its not even funny. Then I get the "what do you think question"... "What do I think?? I think hiring a developer/programmer will save you a lot of money. All that is, is Linux with <OSS list inserted here>" If more of those companies actually advertised what they were building their products off of, it would be a great help to OSS. Some do but all should. Either way, to see PostgreSQL talked about with Linux and Apache will be a great day. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Chris Travers wrote: > I am wondering if you are interested in helping with some sort of skills > outline project-- what skills we as a community think are important for > someone to claim basic mastery over the database manager. Not as if you > don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least as a mentor. Sure, makes sense. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Quoting "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>: > On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > That situtation is a little different though since Linux comes is > > > various distributions. Eventually people with get that Linux = Red > > > Hat is NOT true. Heck, IBM is probably the best at promoting Linux > > > these days in the mainstream. With PostgreSQL, we're just one "disto" > > > so once the ball really gets rolling, its going to pick up speed > > > quickly. > > > > Well, we're moving more into a direction where PostgreSQL is just a > > "kernel" and you have to look around and search the other applications > > yourself, such as language bindings, GUI tools, etc. This trend has > > both advantages and disadvantages, but providing comprehensive > > information through any means is becoming more of a challenge. > > IMHO, "promoting" software should be a function on the web site, and not > including it as part of the distribution ... is there an open source > distro of something like freshmeat that we could put up (so that we don't > have to 'yet again recreate the wheel')? > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > Marc, Isn't our Gborg loosely equivalent to Freshmeat? -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Keith C. Perry wrote: > > Also, though lots of people want training, seems that want _free_ > > training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta classes, that's for sure. I > > give classes at many conferences around the world too, and I get usually > > 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. Maybe they want me to come > > to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is cooking for dinner > > before I decide. :-) > > LOL, Bruce tell you what- I'm a pretty good cook. Maybe I'll talk to Drexel > about a catered certification event! That definitely be *bam* taking it up a > notch!! Last time I was at Drexel they took me out to dinner afterwards, and it was very nice. Come to think of it, the offered pizza at the event, but I was fed only _after_ talked. Hmmm... -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:41:39 -0500 (EST) > From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > Cc: Stephan Szabo <sszabo@megazone.bigpanda.com>, Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>, > pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > Chris Travers wrote: > > I think though that there is an opportunity, though, for us to perhaps > > work together in developing a Postgresql training base curriculum. We > > can pool some resources and perhaps develop at least a list of the > > things which ought to be covered. Perhaps this can lead to books on the > > subject, etc. I am thinking that an open curriculum might be something > > very helpful particularly for novices. It doesn't have to lead to > > certification, but it could enable third parties (including Brainbench) > > to build certifications that they could charge for. > > All my class presentations are on my home page --- the only thing that > isn't there is the exercises. > > And, from what I have seen of the Table of Contents of the book, as listed on the Internet, exercises are also not there. Exercises make alot of difference to training and learning, as, from exercises, comes understanding and remembering. That is one of the reasons that I seek formalised, standardised training, and a Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days book (to which I recently alluded in a particular query about the book), apart from the certifications. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
If you considering a skills outline, also consider dividing it two areas; developer and dba. My experience is mostly with Oracle (more years than I care to remember), and with this product in many organizations, there are usually two camps; the dba (God) and the developers (devils - always trying to break the db, and annoy the dba) From watching this list for the past couple of weeks it appears that many members of this list are both developer (some of postgres itself and others, users of postgres) and dba. I think that the divide (with Oracle) is mostly political and cultural, and that the best database solutions are those built by individuals or teams that straddle both camps. I've come to Postgres because I working with a startup that cannot afford the Oracle web license. I suspect that a proportion of new users are also those who have come from other databases for varying reasons (often financial, missing feature set etc). To cater for this "market", maybe it would be best to provide material that caters specifically to the DBA, the developer, or those that want to be both. Just my $0.02 (FWIW). John Sidney-Woollett Bruce Momjian said: > Chris Travers wrote: >> I am wondering if you are interested in helping with some sort of skills >> outline project-- what skills we as a community think are important for >> someone to claim basic mastery over the database manager. Not as if you >> don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least as a mentor. > > Sure, makes sense. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania > 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org >
Hi John;
I was actually looking at dividing it into the following areas (fairly
similar to your suggestion, actually):
1: Basic competency: Entry level dev/small time admin. Basic database
design and operation concepts. Basic SQL competency.
2: Advanced competency: performance tuning, trigger development,
advanced features. Competent admin, mid-range dev.
3: In depth advanced documentation for specialists:
* Enterprise DBA's
* Application developers using extremely advanced features (2-phase
commit, when supported, for example, in distributed transactions).
* Developers of PostgreSQL modules (types, PL's, C functions,
advanced stored procedures).
I think that it is important that dev's and dba's see things from
eachothers' perspective. However, I do agree that at some point, there
is a divide which needs to be accepted rather than bridged.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 00:00, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
> If you considering a skills outline, also consider dividing it two areas;
> developer and dba.
>
> My experience is mostly with Oracle (more years than I care to remember),
> and with this product in many organizations, there are usually two camps;
> the dba (God) and the developers (devils - always trying to break the db,
> and annoy the dba)
>
> >From watching this list for the past couple of weeks it appears that many
> members of this list are both developer (some of postgres itself and
> others, users of postgres) and dba.
>
> I think that the divide (with Oracle) is mostly political and cultural,
> and that the best database solutions are those built by individuals or
> teams that straddle both camps.
>
> I've come to Postgres because I working with a startup that cannot afford
> the Oracle web license. I suspect that a proportion of new users are also
> those who have come from other databases for varying reasons (often
> financial, missing feature set etc).
>
> To cater for this "market", maybe it would be best to provide material
> that caters specifically to the DBA, the developer, or those that want to
> be both.
>
> Just my $0.02 (FWIW).
>
> John Sidney-Woollett
>
> Bruce Momjian said:
> > Chris Travers wrote:
> >> I am wondering if you are interested in helping with some sort of skills
> >> outline project-- what skills we as a community think are important for
> >> someone to claim basic mastery over the database manager. Not as if you
> >> don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least as a mentor.
> >
> > Sure, makes sense.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
> > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania
> > 19073
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:40:53 -0500 (EST) > From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> > To: John Gibson <gib@edgate.com> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > John Gibson wrote: > > > > > > > > >> "Linux" training is not standardized by any measure either. Lots of > > >> companies and "institutions" offer their own training courses. Some > > >> of these grow to be fairly well recognized and are offered in similar > > >> form repeatedly in different locations, but that is not > > >> "standardized" in the sense you propose. > > > > > > > > > This is not exactly true. In the marketplace the Red Hat Linux > > > certification (at least in the US) is pretty much considered the > > > standard. > > > > This makes Bret's point for him. Red Hat invested in providing > > training. It is just a de-facto standard, nothing more. > > Imagine if Linus or the Linux kernel guys tried to standardize Linux > training --- it would be a mess. > But, is the LPI certification, not more generic than RH certification, and, was that (the LPI certification) formulated by Linus? Yet, is the LPI certification, not recognised, and, not regarded as relatively generic, in terms of Linux certification? It is a standard Linux certification, and, it is provided by contractors, as mentioned below, in my reference below to Pearson Vue. > Also, though lots of people want training, seems that want _free_ > training. They aren't flooding my Atlanta classes, that's for sure. I > give classes at many conferences around the world too, and I get usually > 20-40 people --- not exactly a flood either. Maybe they want me to come > to their house? :-) Tell me what your wife is cooking for dinner > before I decide. :-) > > Perhaps the scenario should be considered, where, as I have previously mentioned, in places like Perth, Western Australia, we do NOT have an opportunity to get PostgreSQL training. The only time that I have been aware of any event here, related to PostgreSQL, was at the Linux Conference in January this year, where I believe Gavin Sherry gave a presentation and a workshop, or something like that, and, the only way to attend, was to attend the whole Linux conference. It was, for Perth, a once-off occurrence, from what I understand. Formalised, standardised, structured, training and certifications, like, as I have previously mentioned, the MySQL certifications that exist, and that are planned, are independent of locality, and are available across the world, even here, in Perth, Western Australia, as, because they are formalised and standardised, they are offered by different vendors, and, I believe, for example, that the MySQL certifications are offered by three different institutions in Perth, all contractors to Pearson Vue, I believe. In the passage above by Bruce Momjian, whilst the sentence is missing the qualifying words, I assume that it is intended to mean that all who want training, want it for free. If that is the case, I believe that it is wrong, and, so I disagree. I believe that others, like me, would be happy to buy a Teach Yourself PostgreSQL In 21 Days book, if it is available and reasonably priced, and if the content is worthwhile, and, similarly, we would be willing to pay for training and certifications, if they are worthwhile, and, for that, as I have repeatedly mentioned, they would need to be formalised, standardised, and, structured, so that they are meaningful and worthwhile. We do not need for a guru like Bruce Momjian, to travel from his home, out to remote communities like Perth, Western Australia, to provide training, so that people like us, get stuck with all of the overheads that arise from paying travel and accommodation expenses for a guru to visit to provide a short course. It should be able, as I have previously mentioned, to be provided, as formalised, structured, standardised training and certifications, so that local contractors can provide it in their local communities, like the MySQL certifications. And, allowing training and certifications to be so provided, can allow people to obtain the training on either full-time or part-time-bases, thus allowing flexibility that would be missing from a guru-based fly-in-fly-out, intensive short course. It may be noted that I have used, as much as possible, the plural, certifications, rather than the singular, certification. This is because I refer to a course of certifications, similar, for example, to the course of MySQL certifications; the Core Certification, and the Professional Certification, and, the planned MySQL and PHP Certification, and, the planned DBA Certification - thus, My SQL have four certifications, the first two existing, and the latter two, planned to occur. Oh, and, I am the cook in this house, and what is for dinner, depends on what I find in the freezer (not frozen dinners!) and the cupboards, on the day, and, the timing. But, you would have to beware of our cat. :) -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
On 12 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > Date: 12 Dec 2003 20:46:57 +0800 > From: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > To: Keith C. Perry <netadmin@vcsn.com> > Cc: Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>, pgsql-novice@postgresql.org, > pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 02:04, Keith C. Perry wrote: > > > > > > > Agreed. However-- there is a push in the IT world (much resisted here) > > > to try to make sysadmin/DBA positions more of a technician-oriented > > > rather than academic oriented. The idea here is that it reduces IT > > > costs (perhaps, though, at the expense of returns). > > > > I think it just the opposite- or perhaps better said, its starting to chance. I > > think many companies have learned that a piece of paper is just that- especially > > in the case of certs. This is not to say that there are exceptions but lets > > face it, it really comes down to what a person has actually done. The change > > I'm seeing is that the decision making folks are more often asking "what have > > you done and how can we confirm" instead of "what are you certified/degreed in > > and can we see the paper" > > > > I still think that there is a movement in many businesses to see the > role of DBA, sysadmin, etc. as that of a glorified technician rather > than a really serious professional. Certifications are a part of it, > but it is a broader pattern. This is especially true of the market of > mid-size businesses. The larger businesses tend to have the lower ranks > manned by glorified techs, while the upper ranks are managed by the more > academic types. > I assume from the content of the above paragraph, that certification is regarded as applying to only administartors, be they DBA's or Systems or Network Administrators. However, certifications such as the MCAD and MCSD, exist, for applications and solutions developers, and, there are offered by USA universities, across the Internet, certificates in web programming; in other words, also, applications developers. The MySQL certifications, from what I understand, the four certifications, two existing and two planned, to which I have previously alluded, cover both administrators and developers. To cover both areas, are important, and, no doubt, equally important, so that developers, in addition to administrators, can obtain certifications that relecvt and afford recongition of, their skills. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
On Sat, 13 Dec 2003, Bret Busby wrote: > > > > > > > I still think that there is a movement in many businesses to see the > > role of DBA, sysadmin, etc. as that of a glorified technician rather > > than a really serious professional. Certifications are a part of it, > > but it is a broader pattern. This is especially true of the market of > > mid-size businesses. The larger businesses tend to have the lower ranks > > manned by glorified techs, while the upper ranks are managed by the more > > academic types. > > > > I assume from the content of the above paragraph, that certification is > regarded as applying to only administartors, be they DBA's or Systems or > Network Administrators. > Old age is catching up with me. The sixth word in the second line of the paragraph immediately above, should be "administrators". > However, certifications such as the MCAD and MCSD, exist, for > applications and solutions developers, and, there are offered by USA > universities, across the Internet, certificates in web programming; in > other words, also, applications developers (of sorts). > > The MySQL certifications, from what I understand, the four > certifications, two existing and two planned, to which I have > previously alluded, cover both administrators and developers. > > To cover both areas, are important, and, no doubt, equally important, so > that developers, in addition to administrators, can obtain > certifications that relecvt and afford recongition of, their skills. > > It gets worse and worse. In the last line of the paragraph immediately above, the third word, should be "reflects", and, the sixth word, should be "recognition". Apologies for the errors. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Hi Chris
In my experience, you typically find the following types of
database roles within organizations.
The architect is the one who designs the database solution (hopefully
knowing the full capabilities and limitations of the database). SQL Users
are those that extract data from a predetermined database. The DBA's role
is to administer and tune the database to keep it running.
Single | Departmental | Enterprise
User | Server | System
-----------------------------------------------------
Architect | Architect | Architect
SQL User | DBA |
DBA | |
-----------------------------------------------------
| SQL User | SQL User
-----------------------------------------------------
| | DBA
I know that this is a *gross* generalisation, but most people will fall
into one or a combination of the three roles above (I suspect). What I
have called an architect, you have called a specialist. It goes without
saying that the architect role is a superset of the SQL User role.
I'm not exactly sure how you would devise courses to meet the matrix above
(assuming that it's correct).
But what you're suggesting I think is definitely headed in the right
direction.
My only other comment is that moderately complex, well designed databases
make use of stored procedures/functions, (foreign key) constraints and
checks, and triggers. And maybe these should be included within the basic
section, and then become expanded on in a later course.
John
Chris Travers said:
> Hi John;
>
> I was actually looking at dividing it into the following areas (fairly
similar to your suggestion, actually):
>
> 1: Basic competency: Entry level dev/small time admin. Basic database
design and operation concepts. Basic SQL competency.
>
> 2: Advanced competency: performance tuning, trigger development,
advanced features. Competent admin, mid-range dev.
>
> 3: In depth advanced documentation for specialists:
> * Enterprise DBA's
> * Application developers using extremely advanced features (2-phase
> commit, when supported, for example, in distributed transactions).
> * Developers of PostgreSQL modules (types, PL's, C functions,
> advanced stored procedures).
>
> I think that it is important that dev's and dba's see things from
eachothers' perspective. However, I do agree that at some point, there
is a divide which needs to be accepted rather than bridged.
>
> Best Wishes,
> Chris Travers
>
> On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 00:00, John Sidney-Woollett wrote:
>> If you considering a skills outline, also consider dividing it two areas;
>> developer and dba.
>> My experience is mostly with Oracle (more years than I care to
>> remember),
>> and with this product in many organizations, there are usually two camps;
>> the dba (God) and the developers (devils - always trying to break the db,
>> and annoy the dba)
>> >From watching this list for the past couple of weeks it appears that
>> many
>> members of this list are both developer (some of postgres itself and
others, users of postgres) and dba.
>> I think that the divide (with Oracle) is mostly political and cultural,
and that the best database solutions are those built by individuals or
teams that straddle both camps.
>> I've come to Postgres because I working with a startup that cannot afford
>> the Oracle web license. I suspect that a proportion of new users are also
>> those who have come from other databases for varying reasons (often
financial, missing feature set etc).
>> To cater for this "market", maybe it would be best to provide material
that caters specifically to the DBA, the developer, or those that want
to
>> be both.
>> Just my $0.02 (FWIW).
>> John Sidney-Woollett
>> Bruce Momjian said:
>> > Chris Travers wrote:
>> >> I am wondering if you are interested in helping with some sort of
>> skills
>> >> outline project-- what skills we as a community think are important
>> for
>> >> someone to claim basic mastery over the database manager. Not as if
>> you
>> >> don't have enough to do already ;-) Maybe at least as a mentor.
>> >
>> > Sure, makes sense.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
>> > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
>> > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania
>> > 19073
>> >
>> > ---------------------------(end of
>> broadcast)---------------------------
>> > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
>> majordomo@postgresql.org
>> >
>> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>
>
On 12 Dec 2003, Chris Travers wrote: > Date: 12 Dec 2003 23:18:29 +0800 > From: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > To: johnsw@wardbrook.com > Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, John Gibson <gib@edgate.com>, > pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > Hi John; > > I was actually looking at dividing it into the following areas (fairly > similar to your suggestion, actually): > > 1: Basic competency: Entry level dev/small time admin. Basic database > design and operation concepts. Basic SQL competency. > > 2: Advanced competency: performance tuning, trigger development, > advanced features. Competent admin, mid-range dev. > > 3: In depth advanced documentation for specialists: > * Enterprise DBA's > * Application developers using extremely advanced features (2-phase > commit, when supported, for example, in distributed transactions). > * Developers of PostgreSQL modules (types, PL's, C functions, > advanced stored procedures). > > I think that it is important that dev's and dba's see things from > eachothers' perspective. However, I do agree that at some point, there > is a divide which needs to be accepted rather than bridged. > > Best Wishes, > Chris Travers > > I assume from the above, that the 1 one (Basic competency), would be the equivalent of the MySQL 4 Core Certification? Would it not also be appropriate, to include in that one, installation and (basic) configuration; that is, including configuration, but not to the extent of performance tuning? Also, then, in which level, would you include upgrading (version upgrades)? Out of interest, Chris, in noting your message timestamp, which shows the same time zone as Western Australia, are you somehwere above me (in some country north of Western Australia)? The only country below me, from my understanding, is Antartica. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Sidney-Woollett wrote: > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:55:06 -0000 (GMT) > From: John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> > To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > Hi Chris > > In my experience, you typically find the following types of > database roles within organizations. > > The architect is the one who designs the database solution (hopefully > knowing the full capabilities and limitations of the database). SQL Users > are those that extract data from a predetermined database. The DBA's role > is to administer and tune the database to keep it running. > > Single | Departmental | Enterprise > User | Server | System > ----------------------------------------------------- > Architect | Architect | Architect > SQL User | DBA | > DBA | | > ----------------------------------------------------- > | SQL User | SQL User > ----------------------------------------------------- > | | DBA > > I know that this is a *gross* generalisation, but most people will fall > into one or a combination of the three roles above (I suspect). What I > have called an architect, you have called a specialist. It goes without > saying that the architect role is a superset of the SQL User role. > > In the above model, is the database programmer, the SQL User as you have designated? For example, from my understanding, my wife, who works for a contractor, might design a database, she might, given the design, write the code to create and operate the database, or she might do both of those, or, given a database of which she has no previous knowledge, and for which no documentation exists, she may be required to figure it out; what it does and how it operates, and create bug fixes or modifications. The latter case has occurred, for example, in her informix history (from memory), when no documentation exists, when the database developer contractor has closed down, and, she is employed to fix or modify the software (or migrate it from one environment to another, as has happened more recently, from my understanding). My understanding of your model, is that when she designs a new database, she is an architect, needing to know the capabilities and limitations of the DBMS development environment, eg, PostgreSQL, Informix, etc, but, how is she classified in your model, in the other cases that I have mentioned? From what I understand of the development area of my wife's employer, in one project, she may be the designer, in another, she may be the programmer, in another, she may be the tester, and, in another, she may be any combination of the three. Thus, perhaps, an "architect" needs to know what can be done, and a programmer needs to know (or to be able to work out) how to do it, which (I believe) needs more in depth knowledge than the "architect". The sales people also need some understanding of the capabilities, as, from what she has told me, sales people often try to sell (in good faith) unobtainable objectives (apart from unachievable deadlines). To know the capabilities and limitations for the role of the architect, is one thing, but, to know the syntax, and the extensions and workarounds required to achieve particular objectives, and, likewise, to interpret the code, to figure out what is going on and how it works, so as to be able to formulate and encode appropriate modifications, is another thing, and, is more than, for example a DBA or client's programmer, might involve. I think that perhaps your model may suit a company where the company develops its own software, and therefore does everything in-house, and does not contract out to other organisations, but, I think that the model may need varying, for contractor organisations, and for organisations that have a DBA, who may do some basic query development, and contracts out in-depth development/modifications. Just a thought... Thus, from what I have said, I suggest that courses/certifications, along similar lines to the MySQL certifications, would be useful, at least as starting points; a Core (or basic) Course/Certification, a DBA Course/Certification, and varying Developer Courses/Certifications (like the MySQL Professional Certification and the MySQL and PHP Certification), which could vary in level and in content. The Core Course/Certification could be a prerequisite for the others, and, could suffice for a basic SQL User as you have mentioned, and, could do for a starting PostgreSQL user/developer. Then the person could move on with the DBA stream, or, with the Developer stream. I do not have any idea of the degree of intellectual property involved, but, perhaps it could be wise, to use both the nature and the content (as in topics), of the MySQL courses/certifications, as starting points. I would think that MySQL should not have a problem with that, and, it is good to have a starting point model, even if only as a guide from whence to start. For that, people would need to put aside any aversions (they seem to exist) to MySQL, and, consider my proposition on its merits, and, the MySQL certifications models and pathways, and, the content of the MySQL certifications, on their merits, and, how they might be adapted, for use with PostgreSQL. And, I suggest that the MySQL certifications model, would certainly fit the model that you have indicated above, as well as the combinations that I have mentioned. -- Bret Busby Armadale West Australia .............. "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the answer means." - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: A Trilogy In Four Parts", written by Douglas Adams, published by Pan Books, 1992 ....................................................
Quoting Bret Busby <bret@busby.net>: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, John Sidney-Woollett wrote: > > > Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:55:06 -0000 (GMT) > > From: John Sidney-Woollett <johnsw@wardbrook.com> > > To: Chris Travers <chris@travelamericas.com> > > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] [NOVICE] PostgreSQL Training > > > > Hi Chris > > > > In my experience, you typically find the following types of > > database roles within organizations. > > > > The architect is the one who designs the database solution (hopefully > > knowing the full capabilities and limitations of the database). SQL Users > > are those that extract data from a predetermined database. The DBA's role > > is to administer and tune the database to keep it running. > > > > Single | Departmental | Enterprise > > User | Server | System > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Architect | Architect | Architect > > SQL User | DBA | > > DBA | | > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > | SQL User | SQL User > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > | | DBA > > > > I know that this is a *gross* generalisation, but most people will fall > > into one or a combination of the three roles above (I suspect). What I > > have called an architect, you have called a specialist. It goes without > > saying that the architect role is a superset of the SQL User role. > > > > > > In the above model, is the database programmer, the SQL User as you have > designated? > > For example, from my understanding, my wife, who works for a contractor, > might design a database, she might, given the design, write the code to > create and operate the database, or she might do both of those, or, > given a database of which she has no previous knowledge, and for which > no documentation exists, she may be required to figure it out; what it > does and how it operates, and create bug fixes or modifications. The > latter case has occurred, for example, in her informix history (from > memory), when no documentation exists, when the database developer > contractor has closed down, and, she is employed to fix or modify the > software (or migrate it from one environment to another, as has > happened more recently, from my understanding). > > My understanding of your model, is that when she designs a new > database, she is an architect, needing to know the capabilities and > limitations of the DBMS development environment, eg, PostgreSQL, > Informix, etc, but, how is she classified in your model, in the other > cases that I have mentioned? > > >From what I understand of the development area of my wife's employer, in > one project, she may be the designer, in another, she may be the > programmer, in another, she may be the tester, and, in another, she may > be any combination of the three. > > Thus, perhaps, an "architect" needs to know what can be done, and a > programmer needs to know (or to be able to work out) how to do it, which > (I believe) needs more in depth knowledge than the "architect". The > sales people also need some understanding of the capabilities, as, from > what she has told me, sales people often try to sell (in good faith) > unobtainable objectives (apart from unachievable deadlines). > > To know the capabilities and limitations for the role of the architect, > is one thing, but, to know the syntax, and the extensions and > workarounds required to achieve particular objectives, and, likewise, to > interpret the code, to figure out what is going on and how it works, so > as to be able to formulate and encode appropriate modifications, is > another thing, and, is more than, for example a DBA or client's > programmer, might involve. > > I think that perhaps your model may suit a company where the company > develops its own software, and therefore does everything in-house, and > does not contract out to other organisations, but, I think that the > model may need varying, for contractor organisations, and for > organisations that have a DBA, who may do some basic query development, > and contracts out in-depth development/modifications. Just a thought... > > Thus, from what I have said, I suggest that courses/certifications, > along similar lines to the MySQL certifications, would be useful, at > least as starting points; a Core (or basic) Course/Certification, a > DBA Course/Certification, and varying Developer Courses/Certifications > (like the MySQL Professional Certification and the MySQL and PHP > Certification), which could vary in level and in content. > > The Core Course/Certification could be a prerequisite for the others, > and, could suffice for a basic SQL User as you have mentioned, and, > could do for a starting PostgreSQL user/developer. Then the person could > move on with the DBA stream, or, with the Developer stream. > > I do not have any idea of the degree of intellectual property involved, > but, perhaps it could be wise, to use both the nature and the content > (as in topics), of the MySQL courses/certifications, as starting points. > I would think that MySQL should not have a problem with that, and, it is > good to have a starting point model, even if only as a guide from whence > to start. > > For that, people would need to put aside any aversions (they seem to > exist) to MySQL, and, consider my proposition on its merits, and, the > MySQL certifications models and pathways, and, the content of the MySQL > certifications, on their merits, and, how they might be adapted, for use > with PostgreSQL. > > And, I suggest that the MySQL certifications model, would certainly fit > the model that you have indicated above, as well as the combinations > that I have mentioned. > > -- > Bret Busby > Armadale > West Australia > .............. > > "So once you do know what the question actually is, > you'll know what the answer means." > - Deep Thought, > Chapter 28 of > "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: > A Trilogy In Four Parts", > written by Douglas Adams, > published by Pan Books, 1992 > .................................................... > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > In regards to the model, perhaps it would be wise to only define the roles needed as opposed to the where those roles fit into the environment. I agree, as a consultant, you might be tasked with providing any combination of the DBA, SQL User (end user?), Architect. So the model do not completely apply but the role are accurate. Why not just definite the roles since that is the constant regardless of if its a person or group rendering the work. We could have some diagrams of recommended organizational structure and work flow as a guide. Seems like that might be helpful to people/organizations that are a less experienced with a developement environment. -- Keith C. Perry, MS E.E. Director of Networks & Applications VCSN, Inc. http://vcsn.com ____________________________________ This email account is being host by: VCSN, Inc : http://vcsn.com
Hi Brett; On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 01:06, Bret Busby wrote: <snip> > > I assume from the above, that the 1 one (Basic competency), would be > the equivalent of the MySQL 4 Core Certification? > > Would it not also be appropriate, to include in that one, installation > and (basic) configuration; that is, including configuration, but not to > the extent of performance tuning? > Installation and basic configuration might be a part of it. However, as I have stated before, this MIGHT eventually lead to certification, but IF it happens, it will be years or decades away. > Also, then, in which level, would you include upgrading (version > upgrades)? > Bear in mind that the model I am working with is a rough draft and I welcome community feedback. Basic upgrading may be considered part of the basic competency part, but more advanced aspects would be at least a level or 2 beyond that. Also, you should understand that while I agree that a more structured framework would be helpful for people learning the program, I think there is something to be said against overly structuring the curriculum. This is where, IMO, the Microsoft certifications fall flat. (I have taken and passed 11 of the MCP exams and of those, I was only impressed with 1 of them; it is now retired.) What I am hoping to do is create a community record of what is considered to be a set of skills necessary to really use the database manager in a variety of ways. This is lacking (both in the MySQL and PostgreSQL communities) and I think that it would be helpful for us to do it first. Then the actual technical might be filled in by individual contributors, and discussions could be had over errors (allowing a better peer review process). Community ownership is imperitive. > Out of interest, Chris, in noting your message timestamp, which shows > the same time zone as Western Australia, are you somehwere above me (in > some country north of Western Australia)? The only country below me, > from my understanding, is Antartica. Yes. I am currently in Jakarta, Indonesia (for the next few months). Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Bret.....
> The MySQL certifications, are international skillset certifications,
> like MCAD, MCSD, MCSE, RHCE, and LPI certifications, and, from what I
> understand, similarly, internationally recognised.
In my experience these have less to do with being proficient at a
disipline and more to do with marketing (of the individual holding the
certificate and of the application). The people here are more doers than
marketers.
That being said, PostgreSQL could sure use some more marketing.
> My wife is a software developer, by profession. She also trains people,
> and has trained lecturers, in some of the development software in which
> she develops.
Sounds like there is room for YOU and your wife could get involved in
setting up and administering some kind of PorstgreSQL certification
program! I have no idea if this would be feasible in the PostgreSQL
community or not, and I've read here that Red Hat is doing just that with
their dialect of the PostgreSQL server (maybe somebody else can
elaborate).
As far as books, I just know returned a book to the library, 'Learn SQL
in 14 days' or something similiar (sorry, don't remember the author)
and the concepts presented there (which includes triggers and
procedures, etc.) are transferrable to any SQL database.
There are some good PostgreSQL specific books, too (including Bruce
Momjian's). If you think there is a need for a basic starter's guide to
PostgreSQL you might put one together and offer it (for money, or
otherwise!).
You are right in that PostgreSQL could benefit from more marketing.
The world is your oyster!
brew
==========================================================================
Strange Brew (brew@theMode.com)
Check out my Musician's Online Database Exchange (The MODE Pages)
http://www.TheMode.com
==========================================================================
Quoth chris@travelamericas.com (Chris Travers): > On Fri, 2003-12-12 at 02:04, Keith C. Perry wrote: >> I think it just the opposite- or perhaps better said, its starting >> to chance. I think many companies have learned that a piece of >> paper is just that- especially in the case of certs. This is not >> to say that there are exceptions but lets face it, it really comes >> down to what a person has actually done. The change I'm seeing is >> that the decision making folks are more often asking "what have you >> done and how can we confirm" instead of "what are you >> certified/degreed in and can we see the paper" > > I still think that there is a movement in many businesses to see the > role of DBA, sysadmin, etc. as that of a glorified technician rather > than a really serious professional. Certifications are a part of > it, but it is a broader pattern. This is especially true of the > market of mid-size businesses. The larger businesses tend to have > the lower ranks manned by glorified techs, while the upper ranks are > managed by the more academic types. > > I presume that your experience is different, and I hope you are > right. I personally thing that databases are so important to a > business that they should really look at doing it right. I think there are two considerations to look at: 1. The businesses that are sufficiently "forward thinking" to consider using PostgreSQL may be thoughtful enough to be looking more for 'serious professionals.' 2. It seems to me that the "IT Downturn" is starting to make the value of certifications like MCSE unravel. From what I can see, most of the "certifications" were valuable to IT workers when the markets in the things certified were expanding. The latest Microsoft ads are showing off claims of saving hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the only way THAT is likely is if the upshot of installing new versions is that the companies can eliminate most of the MCSEs. (Which means that if there was "truth in advertising," the administrators presented in the commercials would be white-faced, and asking who's going to get the axe next...) In a market where there are a whole lot of "paper-qualified" people out of work who have written tests that were designed for the answers to be memorizable, you've got to have better than "paper." >> The beauty of PostgreSQL, Linux, Apache et al, is that there is no >> singular concept of "should". Its a worldwide community and there >> are going to be many paths to a successful marketing campaign. As >> such the only "should" criteria to me is that we SHOULD respect all >> methods equally. >> > OK. I misspoke. It is easy to think of a community as a monolithic > entity... Perhaps more appropriate would have been: > > This is why moving toward eventual training documents and possibly > eventual certifications is important for the PostgreSQL community. I think there are training documents; what needs to happen is to improve them. And I think the notion of certification is quite distant down the road... -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc" "@" "enworbbc")) http://cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html cc hello.c, in Canada, results in: eh.oot
Hi Christopher-- I think we are talking apples and oranges here. Also sorry for the delay in responding. My son was born on Dec 16th, the day the message was sent to which I am responding. Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> Wrote: > 1. The businesses that are sufficiently "forward thinking" to > consider using PostgreSQL may be thoughtful enough to be looking more > for 'serious professionals.' I agree to a point, and I am not disagreeing with the idea that serious professionals are more valuable and provide more value for the salery than paper cert holders. But I have STILL seen many employers looking for paper certs, especially in the small to midsize markets where the manager might not know better. I think that PostgreSQL has quite a bit to offer these markets and it may take some re-education on our part and quite a bit of advocacy to make it work. Certification years or decades down the road could be helpful here. > > 2. It seems to me that the "IT Downturn" is starting to make the > value of certifications like MCSE unravel. From what I can see, most > of the "certifications" were valuable to IT workers when the markets > in the things certified were expanding. > To some extent that has been the case, but bear in mind that the candidate screeners from HR don't always know how to spot a serious professional in a given field, and for more menial work, the MCSE, et al save the screener quite a bit of work. > I think there are training documents; what needs to happen is to > improve them. Ok. I see the tutorials, and there a few other documents there, but I see the lack of a few things: 1: Comprehensive list of skills that should be considered mandatory to consider oneself competent at working with PostgreSQL 2: A comprehensive training manual. A short tutorial might be OK for a newbie but if that is the extend you have people doing things like creating one table per customer and not knowing how to manage the information in the database. The second depends on the first. I have put together a tentative list (in no particular order) for basic competence: 1: Understanding of what an RDBMS is. 2: Database design principles and normalization through third normal form 2a: Understanding of data integrity issues (what does NULL mean, RI, etc.) 3: Understanding of simple SQL selects, inserts, updates, and deletes. 4: Understanding of basic views, rules, SQL language user defined functions. 5: Understanding of permissions and security. 6: Understanding of common data types and how to create tables. 6a: Understanding REFERENCES constraints and ON UPDATE/ON DELETE modifiers. 7: How to install PostgreSQL on Windows via Cygwin and *NIX from source. Anyone have anything else to add? For more advanced competency, I would add higher normal forms, PLPGSQL, and a few other things. > > And I think the notion of certification is quite distant down the > road... As I have said-- years or decades. But having a well reviewed suggested standard of skills would not only allow that to happen *if* the market would support it, but also provide better value to our newbie community than any of the other open source RDBMS's. That is, IMO, where we should be focusing our attention, and certification, if and when it happens can be purely an afterthought. Best Wishes, Chris Travers