• Stark (unregistered)

    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

  • drusi (unregistered)

    Well, it certainly is an "original" approach. I'd be surprised if any major corporations were already selling a similar product.

    You know, much like how I doubt any major corporations are selling tissue paper soda bottles.

  • (cs)
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

  • TheCPUWizard (unregistered)

    Two comments...

    1. Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...

    2. There are many circumstances (especially with dynamic data) where normalized tables are NOT the "right way to goe". In a fair number of cases and EAV [Entity, Attribute, Value] triad (single table with three columns) along with supporting definition columns can lead to results that are easier to develop/maintain and also exceed the performance of traditions approaches...

    Many WTF's with the interview process (but they are so common, I do not think them "worthy"), but none with the actual idea (based solely on the very limited information provided.

  • (cs) in reply to Someone You Know
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

  • Anon (unregistered)

    I think Jose (or Joe as J.K. called him) made the right decision. Clearly these people don't have the grand vision. The future isn't database inside databases, it's databases inside databases inside databases!

    By the way, I'm currently looking for investors for my world-changing idea of databases in databases in databases in databases!

  • banananananana (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    Two comments...
    1. Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...

    select * from syscat.[tables|columns|views|references|triggers];

    (quess that specific rdb)

  • Bert Glanstron (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    Someone You Know:
    Remy Porter's Comments:
    His first warning should have been that she was wearing two mismatched plaids, a fashion don't even naked robots recognize.

    Did Mark write that sentence for you, Remy?

    Now we're going to start picking on HTML comments?

    "Don't" is a noun in that sentence. Now try reading it again.

    You are an idiot and should be banned from your mommy and daddy's modem.
  • Ronan (unregistered)

    The database in a database is a structure often seen in content management systems. the real database is the database of the cms, and the database in a database is the database of the application you're building with the cms.

    I'm thinking of drupal and ezpublish, but I assume it must be true for non-php based cmss as well.

  • Xzibit (unregistered)

    Yo dawg, I herd u liek databases. So, we put a database in your database, so you can query while u query.

  • (cs)

    The real WTF is that this is sadly the state of IT. They want the most perfectly technical candidate who is a total expert and then treat them like a junior, telling them they are not a "team player" if they dare to voice an opinion about a better way of doing things.

    I would really like to work for a good start-up though. It's been my ambition. But a start-up before they start developing anything.

  • (cs)

    Wait a minute... Lisa appeared to be the proponent of database in a database methodology. I could understand that her evaluation probably bombed the candidate, but how did the DiaD idea become the CTO's?

  • (cs) in reply to banananananana

    To my understanding, that's just querying the metadata about the database. It doesn't really have any affect on the structure of the system.

  • Grammer Nazi (unregistered)
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.
  • imgx64 (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    I think Jose (or Joe as J.K. called him) made the right decision. Clearly these people don't have the grand vision. The future isn't database inside databases, it's databases inside databases inside databases!

    By the way, I'm currently looking for investors for my world-changing idea of databases in databases in databases in databases!

    'sup dawg. I heard you like to store data while you store data while you store data, so we put a database in your database in your database.

  • J.K. (unregistered)

    You guys at TDWTF need to back off. If you understood our requirements you'd get why our C# interpretter written in a C++ interpretter that's written in a JAVA interpretter that's written in JAVA will run far more efficently in a database defined in a database.

  • Tom (unregistered)

    At my first job our manager had the same idea. We tried to refuse but he made us implement this monstrosity. The only difference is that he called it a CMS. It was slow and a bitch to work with. I left the company 3 months later.

  • (cs) in reply to Grammer Nazi

    You have a higher opinion of the general public's reading comprehension and vocabulary than I do.

    Sometimes, you've just gotta be obvious.

  • (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    You have a higher opinion of the general public's reading comprehension and vocabulary than I do.

    Sometimes, you've just gotta be obvious.

    QFT.

  • Nazi nazi (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi

    The word you are looking for is "Grammar". "Grammar Nazi".

  • Grammer Nazi (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    You have a higher opinion of the general public's reading comprehension and vocabulary than I do.

    Sometimes, you've just gotta be obvious.

    Well, if you think that's the case, don't use the word "sublimated." While we're at it, you should have put quotes around "don't" in your comments.

  • Lisa (unregistered) in reply to J.K.
    J.K.:
    You guys at TDWTF need to back off. If you understood our requirements you'd get why our C# interpretter written in a C++ interpretter that's written in a JAVA interpretter that's written in JAVA will run far more efficently in a database defined in a database.
    Yeah, but only if you store it on a file system in a file system running in a virtualized OS running in an emulator.
  • Bob (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard

    1. I think you might be mistaking the interface for the rdmbs.

    2. I'm not a normalisation fanatic but unless it's fairly well normalised then, rather than "re-purposing" the rdbms, you'd be much better off not using a rdbms.

  • Insane Definition Nazi (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    I can't pick between these comments:

    There's nothing sublime about this place.

    What does this have to do with being under a lime anyway? But Lisa does seem like a sourpuss.

  • Whatever (unregistered) in reply to Grammer Nazi
    Grammer Nazi:
    The Article:
    Lisa's smile sublimated into vapor.
    FTFY. The definition of "sublimated" is to become vapor. The use of "into vapor" is redundant.

    The use of "The use of "into vapor" is redundant." is redundant.

  • (cs) in reply to Bob
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!
    opergost:
    I have a great idea. Comments within comments!
  • Greg (unregistered)

    Hmmm... before I would instinctively respond with a WTF, I would have asked Lisa if they were working on a Data Warehouse, and needed to store schema packets for several systems of record, so that the data could more easily flow from one to the other.

    Then I would have asked her if she had ever heard the term 'Metadata'. I would have suggested that a Metadata repository would be key in building a Data Warehouse and the layered Data Marts that interface with it.

    Then I would have asked Matthew if he was aware that this technology has been around for a good ten years, and, although it is something large enterprises use, a start-up would be unlikely to get very far without a contract in hand already - since the data that is to be stored and manipulated is VERY custom, since it is tied to the systems of record already in place at that enterprise. And that they would likely be competing with the likes of SAP, Oracle and IBM for business.

  • Jim Reaper (unregistered) in reply to Nazi nazi
    Nazi nazi:
    The word you are looking for is "Grammar". "Grammar Nazi".

    Lol, trolled

  • Jim Reaper (unregistered)
    It was less an interview and more a conversation. It didn't tell José much about how the company did things, but it also didn't seem to have provided them very much information about him.

    Surely this is entirely José's fault. If it really was a conversation, wouldn't that imply he was taking part in it?

  • The Grenger (unregistered) in reply to Stark
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML files being stored in a database?

  • Jim Reaper (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    2) There are many circumstances (especially with dynamic data) where normalized tables are NOT the "right way to goe". In a fair number of cases and EAV [Entity, Attribute, Value] triad (single table with three columns) along with supporting definition columns can lead to results that are easier to develop/maintain and also exceed the performance of traditions approaches...

    If that was the case here, I'd expect the interviewers to be aware that it's likely to be thought an unusual idiom by someone who's never had that need, and be prepared to be told so. Then they can say "We actually benefit from doing this, and here's why".

  • (cs)

    I am compiling a list of comments on today's WTF. Please send me your comments and I will post them in my next comment.

    This is revolutionary

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to The Enterpriser
    The Enterpriser:
    I am compiling a list of comments on today's WTF. Please send me your comments and I will post them in my next comment.

    This is revolutionary

    OK, I'm in on the revolution! I would like to add that "TRWTF is VB". Thank you for your time, kindest regards.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to The Grenger
    The Grenger:
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML files being stored in a database?

    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?

  • Mordred (unregistered) in reply to Greg

    Thats what im talk'n about dogg!

  • Medinoc (unregistered)

    Ah, the joys of Soft Coding and The Mythical Business Layer...

  • frutz (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    The Grenger:
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML files being stored in a database?

    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    Give it up fake frits, it's not going to work.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to frutz
    frutz:
    frits:
    The Grenger:
    Stark:
    Didn't we do the database in a database thing already?

    Like XML files being stored in a database?

    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    Give it up fake frits, it's not going to work.
    You won't get far in your Java career before you discover that some technologies require configuration, and XML is the only way to do it. Yes, there are more elegant ways that storing the plain-text XML in the database, but none are simpler.

  • Alexandre Brault (unregistered) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    1) Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...
    That would make this business' idea a database in a database in a database. Brilliant!
  • (cs)

    Disclaimer, this comment is completely off topic except in relation to the author.

    Remy, are you a Fedor fan? Because this fan picture from his facebook page looks supiciously like one of your articles:

    [image]
  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    If you're using Extensible XML, nothing. Mind you, you've got to store the configuration for how to connect to the database somewhere. Perhaps in an XML file…
  • Grammer Nazi (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    frits:
    What wrong with XML files being stored in a database? Who hasn't done something like this?
    If you're using Extensible XML, nothing. Mind you, you've got to store the configuration for how to connect to the database somewhere. Perhaps in an XML file…
    The TRWTF is that "X" is for Extensible. Will you all stop using redundant speech.
  • (cs) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    Two comments...
    1. Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...

    That's not exactly true. Tables do contain that information, certainly, but the database tables are not implemented that way. In any competent database implementation, the actual tables are implemented in a low-level, binary fashion, structured around segments and extents and so on (every database has a very different way of implementing this, since there are many ways to solve this problem), and the data dictionary provides metadata about the database structure.

    2) There are many circumstances (especially with dynamic data) where normalized tables are NOT the "right way to goe". In a fair number of cases and EAV [Entity, Attribute, Value] triad (single table with three columns) along with supporting definition columns can lead to results that are easier to develop/maintain and also exceed the performance of traditions approaches..

    Certainly true, and we don't know the details of this application- although we do know it was related to a CDN, which does put some likely bounds on what sort of data was going to be stored. And it's worth noting that an EAV model would be more difficult to shard across distributed nodes unless you had a very clear model of how the entities were going to be used.

    Finally, if your logic for building a database system implemented in a database is to "avoid having to define structure", there's probably something very very wrong.

    I'm certainly no fan of the Relational Database- it's extremely good for certain tasks, but is one of the most horribly abused technologies ever invented. So I'm not saying that normalization is the be-all-end-all of data management, but let's be realistic- no matter what data storage model you use, you're going to need to structure the data in some fashion, and attempts to avoid defining structure are doomed to failure.

    //Besides, we all know the best data storage mechanism is s-expressions. XML is just syntactic sugar on top of LISP.

  • (cs) in reply to frits

    No idea who that is. Honestly, one of these days, I'm going to sit down and build a death-metal version of Cornify- the same idea, but y'know, all the unicorns are death metal themed, and the rainbows will only be colored red and black and possibly bleed. And they'd still sparkle.

    It'll be awesome.

  • The Corrector (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    No idea who that is. Honestly, one of these days, I'm going to sit down and build a death-metal version of Cornify- the same idea, but y'know, all the unicorns are death metal themed, and the rainbows will only be colored red and black and possibly bleed. And they'd still sparkle.

    It'll be gayer.

    FTFY

  • (cs) in reply to TheCPUWizard
    TheCPUWizard:
    1) Every major relational database IS a "database in a database", all of the tales, columns, etc are infact stored in tables...
    Are they? I always thought they were views since you can only modify them with DDL, not DML. But I suppose I've never worked at a low enough level to learn how such information is literally stored in the database.
  • (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    No idea who that is. Honestly, one of these days, I'm going to sit down and build a death-metal version of Cornify- the same idea, but y'know, all the unicorns are death metal themed, and the rainbows will only be colored red and black and possibly bleed. And they'd still sparkle.

    It'll be awesome.

    That's Fedor Emelianenko. He's sort of like death metal personified.

    You should call that site Carcassify. Kornify would almost work if you wanted a has been, nu-metal, balding, baggy pants themed site.

  • (cs) in reply to Insane Definition Nazi
    Insane Definition Nazi:
    I can't pick between these comments:

    There's nothing sublime about this place.

    What does this have to do with being under a lime anyway? But Lisa does seem like a sourpuss.

    They're both clever, but I'd pick the second. Not only is it a great play on words, but it pokes fun at Lisa.

    Yup, definitely the second comment. Go with that one.

  • Lollan (unregistered)

    WOW I'm sure the guy was in the 5th dimension or something. That was really really weird.

  • anon (unregistered)

    Codd's 4th rule: Active, online relational catalog

    The description of the database and its contents is represented at the logical level as tables and can therefore be queried using the database language.

Leave a comment on “Technically an Interview”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article