An open letter to anyone with “SQL Server” on their resume

I have been wondering about this too. For my 15 years, I've only ever worked for software companies doing new product development. So, there's a disconnect when I'm talking to people who come from IT backgrounds. Developing new products requires different skills, and knowing intimate details of specific tools isn't as useful as knowing the full capabilities of what that tool can do.

The worst part of my background, and for these types of interviews, is that I typically switch stacks every couple years. Generally, every time I start a project, I have to re-evaluate the stack. And, choosing one depends on so many variables.

In the past I've spent spent probably 50+ months killing it on SQL Server, but sadly all those details have been wiped from my working memory, because I haven't touched it in 12 months. But, that doesn't mean I'm not effective. It just takes me a week to re-engage and get effective. But, there's never been a job where I didn't become one of the top performers in just a few weeks.

My brain just works differently.

IMHO, knowing there are differences should be enough. Documentation is for looking up exactly how precise each datatype might be, and in general going to the documentation for specifics is preferred since it can and does change.

Yes, but this isn't specifically a SQL Server thing. People will often inflate their skills ridiculously on their CV, sometimes just telling bare faced lies. I once had to deal with an idiot who despite his CV listing him as knowing Javascript to an "advanced" level and jQuery specifically at an "intermediate" level, did not understand what $(<function>); did and was no wiser when we took out all the shortcuts to produce jQuery(document).ready(<function>); I wish I was jesting or exaggerating here. You should have seen the vacant look on his face when we tried to explain a very simple closure. Advanced indeed...

> 2) If above is true, then am I short-selling myself by not putting SQL Server in my resume?!

Possibly. If you understand all the basics covered in that document and have actually used them (rather than just having read about them) then yes. But be very careful to stay aware that knowledge does not necessarily imply experience (nor vice versa) - chose your wording carefully to put yourself in the best light you can without bending the truth (or seeming like you are trying to) implausibly.

Claiming expertise is another step forward: if you say you are an expert that sets the level of expectation very high - you will be expected to have an excellent level of both practical and theoretical knowledge (the how and the why) and a lot of experience to back this up. If you ever claim to be an expert be quite explicit what you are an expert in. If your expertise is in the DBA side of things or from a programmers perspective (to give two generic examples) say so - databases cover a large area of subject matter and you can command a high price if you are truly an expert in the lot!

Basically out on your CV the level that you would be comfortable being asked questions about. If you have some experience or knowledge of SQL Server then by all means say so but try not to exaggerate. If you have experience with SQL based RDBMSs other than SQL server then put that instead (as the basics and some of the not-so-basics are very much transferable) but don't claim SQL Server specific experience unless that is what you actually have.

2) that depends on what you want to do. if you want to get more work doing sql server work, put it on the resume. there's things I've taken off my resume simply because I don't want to do work involving that tech anymore, not because I'm not capable or don't want people to know. In person, I'll tell them if they ask.

re: #1 - people lie on their resumes all the time. people also exaggerate the truth a lot. lastly, some people really do honestly think they "know" a technology if the icon is on their desktop and they've clicked it a few times while working at company X. they may not really even know that they don't know anything substantial about tech X.

The inclusion of items in this list is often "acronyms I can spell" or "software I have been in the same building as".

I don't know if recruiters actually encourage this approach - it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

I believe that the thing that infuriates the interviewer is not ignorance, but the unlimited interviewee's confidence in making up the answers with "logic". If I don't know what truncate is, I just say so.

Also I do know what a clustered index is, the difference between triggers and SPs, or the select into thing. So there wouldn't be so extreme a difference between knowledge and answering impudence.

I'm not ashamed to say that --i-am-a-dummy.

All that fake bravado may get someone hired, but eventually he or she just ends up as an object lesson on a blog somewhere.

That said, the SQL standard is already inconsistent in this respect, which annoys me. You are allowed to use equality in setting a value:

  update mytable set mycol=NULL where mykey=2

Another thing I've noticed more recently - rails developers who know almost nothing about how the database works. Like they might barely be able to write a inner join among 3 tables; left/right joins flummox them entirely. This is by no means universal, but I've encountered it several times in the last year, enough to be a trend in my mind.