Our approval process for creating new database tables is ridiculous. After your table has been created it goes through two other men, both of whom have been woking with SQL for centuries and could actually just create the damn thing themselves and leave me the fuck out of it! Our DBA isn’t really much of a DBA...

Two other "men?" DBA's? Developers? Data Architects? Analysts? Creating a good database isn't just a matter of creating tables and throwing them out there. It requires analysis and thought, and should be modeled in order to understand the relationship of your data. There are a list of rules that need to be applied to ensure good and efficient relational database design. Otherwise you will end up with an unmanageable mess.

@iAmNaN This.

@iAmNaN They want “sacks of tables filled with sacks of columns”

oh, that’s NoSQL

@bkwilliams I've done Cassandra before, and in order to use it, you have to model the data using CQL, which I think is an admission that at the end of the day, data relationships matter even in data swamps... I mean lakes.

@iAmNaN We do the modeling. We do analysis. They check for compliance with our standards and constantly disagree over best design practices. I’m not saying they should just be thrown out. I’m saying they clearly know how best to design and create these tables. They should be the ones doing it. But since my organization is completely lacking any Q/A or DevOps, it’s a moot point.

@broseph if you get two or more Data Architects in a room, you will end up with n+1 designs. We are known for our heated discussions. And that's just on deciding on where to go for lunch.

@iAmNaN “we” explains the defensiveness. Gotcha