Hacker News Reader

Where you start to go wrong is where your talk starts to be of "YOUR" schema. The schema isn't yours, it's the company's. And guarding it is the DBA's job.

(I understand full well that that is a problem if the company has kicked out the DBA role and handed it over to the individual programmers, but perhaps that is precisely the problem.)

View on HN

Fair, though maybe I could describe the same problem from the other end. If I'm a DBA and I want to change the way indexing is done, I might need to audit every query in my company to figure out which ones depend on the old index. One way or another, it seems like knowledge about a query's intent to use an index could've been captured explicitly, in a way that's automatically enforced in the future against any number of accidental breaks. But instead all that knowledge is implicit.

Integrating EXPLAINs in your build/deploy process should, in principle, make it possible for anyone to address any concern in such realms.

The DBA you were mentioning here, e.g., could first do a query in the EXPLAIN results, and he'll have his "company-wide queries audit" in a matter of seconds.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com