This topic has been waiting in the queue for almost two years already - since I finished optimizing an already existing relational data warehouse within a SQL Server 2012 Enterprise Edition environment. Through various simple techniques I managed then to reduce the running time for the load process by more than 65%, from 9 to 3 hours. It’s a considerable performance gain, considering that I didn’t have to refactor any business logic implemented in queries.
The ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) solution was making use of SSIS (SQL Server Integration Services) packages to load data sequentially from several sources into staging tables, and from stating further into base tables. Each package was responsible for deleting the data from the staging tables via TRUNCATE, extracting the data 1:1 from the source into the staging tables, then loading the data 1:1 from the staging table to base tables. It’s the simplest and a relatively effective ETL design I also used with small alterations for data warehouse solutions. For months the data load worked smoothly, until data growth and eventually other problems increased the loading time from 5 to 9 hours.
Using TABLOCK Hint
Using SSIS to bulk load data into SQL Server provides an optimum of performance and flexibility. Within a Data Flow, when “Table Lock” property on the destination is checked, it implies that the insert records are minimally logged, speeding up the load by a factor of two. The TABLOCK hint can be used also for other insert operations performed outside of SSIS packages. At least in this case the movement of data from staging into base tables was performed in plain T-SQL, outside of SSIS packages. Also further data processing had benefitted from this change. Only this optimization step alone provided 30-40% performance gain.
Drop/Recreating the Indexes on Big Tables
As the base tables were having several indexes each, it proved beneficial to drop the indexes for the big tables (e.g. with more than 1000000 records) before loading the data into the base tables, and recreate the indexes afterwards. This was done within SSIS, and provided an additional 20-30% performance gain from the previous step.
Consolidating the Indexes
Adding missing indexes, removing or consolidating (overlapping) indexes are typical index maintenance tasks, apparently occasionally ignored. It doesn’t always bring much performance as compared with the previous methods, though dropping and consolidating some indexes proved to be beneficial as fewer data were maintained. Data processing logic benefited from the creation of new indexes as well.
Running Packages in Parallel
As the packages were run sequentially (one package at a time), the data load was hardly taking advantage of the processing power available on the server. Even if queries could use parallelism, the benefit was minimal. Enabling packages run in parallel added additional performance gain, however this minimized the availability of processing resources for other tasks. When the data load is performed overnight, this causes minimal overhead, however it should be avoided when the data are loading to business hours.
Using Nonclustered Indexes
In my analysis I found out that many tables, especially the ones storing prepared data, were lacking a clustered index, even if further indexes were built on them. I remember that years back there was a (false) myth that fact and/or dimension tables don’t need clustered indexes in SQL Server. Of course clustered indexes have downsides (e.g. fragmentation, excessive key-lookups) though their benefits exceed by far the downsides. Besides missing clustered index, there were cases in which the tables would have benefited from having a narrow clustered index, instead of a multicolumn wide clustered index. Upon case also such cases were addressed.
Removing the Staging Tables
Given the fact that the source and target systems are in the same virtual environment, and the data are loaded 1:1 between the various layers, without further transformations and conversions, one could load the data directly into the base tables. After some tests I came to the conclusion that the load from source tables into the staging table, and the load from staging table into base table (with TABLOCK hint) were taking almost the same amount of time. This means that the base tables will be for the same amount of the time unavailable, if the data were loaded from the sources directly into the base tables. Therefore one could in theory remove the staging tables from the architecture. Frankly, one should think twice when doing such a change, as there can be further implications in time. Even if today the data are imported 1:1, in the future this could change.
Reducing the Data Volume
Reducing the data volume was identified as a possible further technique to reduce the amount of time needed for data loading. A data warehouse is built based on a set of requirements and presumptions that change over time. It can happen for example that even if the reports need only 1-2 years’ worth of data, the data load considers a much bigger timeframe. Some systems can have up to 5-10 years’ worth of data. Loading all data without a specific requirement leads to waste of resources and bigger load times. Limiting the transactional data to a given timeframe can make a considerable difference. Additionally, there are historical data that have the potential to be archived.
There are also tables for which a weekly or monthly refresh would suffice. Some tables or even data sources can become obsolete, however they continue to be loaded in the data warehouse. Such cases occur seldom, though they occur. Also some unused or redundant column could have been removed from the packages.
There are further techniques to optimize the data load within a data warehouse like partitioning large tables, using columnstore indexes or optimizing the storage, however my target was to provide maximum sufficient performance gain with minimum of effort and design changes. Therefore I stopped when I considered that the amount of effort is considerable higher than the performance gain.
 TechNet (2009) The Data Loading Performance Guide, by Thomas Kejser, Peter Carlin & Stuart Ozer
 MSDN (2010) Best Practices for Data Warehousing with SQL Server 2008 R2, by Mark Whitehorn, Keith Burns & Eric N Hanson
 MSDN (2012) Whitepaper: Fast Track Data Warehouse Reference Guide for SQL Server 2012, by Eric Kraemer, Mike Bassett, Eric Lemoine & Dave Withers
 MSDN (2008) Best Practices for Data Warehousing with SQL Server 2008, by Mark Whitehorn & Keith Burns https://msdn.microsoft.com/library/cc719165.aspx
 TechNet (2005) Strategies for Partitioning Relational Data Warehouses in Microsoft SQL Server, by Gandhi Swaminathan
 SQL Server Customer Advisory Team (2013) Top 10 Best Practices for Building a Large Scale Relational Data Warehouse
- IT Professional with more than 16 years experience in IT especially in the area of full life-cycle of Web/Desktop Applications Development, Database Development, Software Engineering, Consultancy, Data Management, Data Quality, Data Migrations, Reporting, ERP support, etc.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Saturday, February 04, 2017
There are many posts on the web advising succinctly how to resolve a blocking situation by terminating a session via kill command, though few of them warn about its use and several important aspects that need to be considered. The command is powerful and, using an old adagio, “with power comes great responsibility”, responsibility not felt when reading between the lines. The easiness with people treat the topic can be seen in questions like “is it possibly to automate terminating sessions?” or in explicit recommendations of terminating the sessions when dealing with blockings.
A session is created when a client connects to a RDBMS (Relational Database Management System) like SQL Server, being nothing but an internal logical representation of the connection. It is used further on to perform work against the database(s) via (batches of) SQL statements. Along its lifetime, a session is uniquely identified by an SPID (Server Process ID) and addresses one SQL statement at a time. Therefore, when a problem with a session occurs, it can be traced back to a query, where the actual troubleshooting needs to be performed.
Even if each session has a defined scope and memory space, and cannot interact with other sessions, sessions can block each other when attempting to use the same data resources. Thus, a blocking occurs when one session holds a lock on a specific resource and a second session attempts to acquire a conflicting lock type on the same resource. In other words, the first session blocks the second session from acquiring a resource. It’s like a drive-in to a fast-food in which autos must line up into a queue to place an order. The second auto can’t place an order until the first don’t have the order – is blocked from placing an order. The third auto must wait for the second, and so on. Similarly, sessions wait in line for a resource, fact that leads to a blocking chain, with a head (the head/lead blocking) and a tail (the sessions that follow). It’s a FIFO (first in, first out) queue and using a little imagination one can compare it metaphorically with a snake. Even if imperfect, the metaphor is appropriate for highlighting some important aspects that can be summed up as follows:
- Snakes have their roles in the ecosystem
- Not all snakes are dangerous
- Grab the snake by its head
- Killing ‘em Softly
- Search for a snake’s nest
- Snakes can kill you in sleep
- Snake taming
Warning: snakes as well blockings need to be handled by a specialist, so don’t do it by yourself unless you know what are you doing!
Snakes have their roles in the ecosystem
Snakes as middle-order predators have an important role in natural ecosystems, as they feed on prey species, whose numbers would increase exponentially if not kept under control. Fortunately, natural ecosystems have such mechanism that tend to auto-regulate themselves. Artificially built ecosystems need as well such auto-regulation mechanisms. As a series of dynamical mechanisms and components that work together toward a purpose, SQL Server is an (artificial) ecosystem that tends to auto-regulate itself. When its environment is adequately sized to handle the volume of information or data it must process then the system will behave smoothly. As soon it starts processing more data than it can handle, it starts misbehaving to the degree that one of its resources gets exhausted.
Just because a blocking occurs doesn’t mean that is a bad thing and needs to be terminated. Temporary blockings occur all the time, as unavoidable characteristic of any RDBMS with lock-based concurrency like SQL Server. They are however easier to observe in systems with heavy workload and concurrent access. The more users in the system touch the same data, the higher the chances for a block to occur. A good design database and application architecture typically minimize blockings’ occurrence and duration, making them almost unobservable. At the opposite extreme poor database design combined with poor application design can make from blockings a DBA’s nightmare. Persistent blockings can be a sign of poor database or application design or a sign that one of the environment’s limits was reached. It’s a sign that something must be done. Restarting the SQL server, terminating sessions or adding more resources have only a temporary effect. The opportunity lies typically in addressing poor database and application design issues, though this can be costlier with time.
Not all snakes are dangerous
A snake’s size is the easiest characteristic on identifying whether a snake is dangerous or not. Big snakes inspire fear for any mortal. Similarly, “big” blockings (blockings consuming an important percentage of the available resources) are dangerous and they have the potential of bringing the whole server down, eating its memory resources slowly until its life comes to a stop. It can be a slow as well a fast death.
Independently of their size, poisonous snakes are a danger for any living creature. By studying snakes’ characteristics like pupils’ shape and skin color patterns the folk devised simple general rules (with local applicability) for identifying whether snakes are poisonous or not. Thus, snakes with diamond-shaped pupils or having color patterns in which red touches yellow are likely/believed to be poisonous. By observing the behavior of blockings and learning about SQL Server’s internals one can with time understand the impact of each blocking on server’s performance.
Grab the snake by its head
Restraining a snake’s head assures that the snake is not able to bite, though it can be dangerous, as the snake might believe is dealing with a predator that is trying to hurt it, and reach accordingly. On the other side troubleshooting blockings must start with the head, the blocking session, as it’s the one which created the blocking problem in the first place.
In SQL Server sp_who and its alternative sp_who2 provide a list of all sessions, with their status, SPID and a reference with the SPID of the session blocking it. It displays thus all the blocking pairs. When one deals with a few blockings one can easily see whether the sessions form a blocking chain. Especially in environments under heavy load one can deal with a handful of blockings that make it difficult to identify all the formed blocking chains. Identifying blocking chains is necessary because by identifying and terminating directly the head blocking will often make the whole blocking chain disappear. The other sessions in the chain will perform thus their work undisturbed.
Going and terminating each blocking session in pairs as displayed in sp_who is not recommended as one terminates more sessions than needed, fact that could have unexpected repercussions. As a rule, one should restore system’s health by making minimal damage.
In many cases terminating the head session will make the blocking chain disperse, however there are cases in which the head session is replaced by other session (e.g. when the sessions involve the same or similar queries). One will need to repeat the needed steps until all blocking chain dissolve.
Killing ‘em Softly
Killing a snake, no matter how blamable the act, it is sometimes necessary. Therefore, it should be used as ultimate approach, when there is no other alternative and when needed to save one’s or others’ life. Similarly killing a session should be done only in extremis, when necessary. For example, when server’s performance has deprecated considerably affecting other users, or when the session is hanging indefinitely.
Kill command is powerful, having the power of a hammer. The problem is that when you have a hammer, every session looks like a nail. Despite all the aplomb one has when using a tool like a hammer, one needs to be careful in dealing with blockings. A blocking not addressed correspondingly can kick back, and in special cases the bite can be deadly, for system as well for one’s job. Killing the beast is the easiest approach. Kill one beast and another one will take its territory. It’s one of the laws of nature applicable also to database environments. The difference is that if one doesn’t addresses the primary cause that lead to a blocking, the same type of snake more likely will appear repeatedly.
Unfortunately, the kill command is no bulletproof for terminating a session, it may only severe the snake. As the documentation warns, there can be cases in which the method won’t have any effect on the blocking, the blocking continuing to room around. So, might be a good idea to check whether the session disappeared and keep an eye on it until it totally disappeared. Especially when dealing with a blocking chain it can happen that the head session is replaced by another session, which probably was waiting for the same resources as the previous head session. It may happen that one deals with two or more blocking chains independent from each other. Such cases appear seldom but are possible.
Killing the head session with a blocking without gathering some data provides less opportunities for learning, for understanding what’s happening in your system, of identifying what caused the blocking to occur. Therefore, before jumping to kill a session, collect the data you need for further troubleshooting.
Search for a snake’s nest
With the warning that unless one deals with small snakes, might not be advisable in searching for a snake’s nest, the idea behind this heuristic is that with a snake’s occurrence more likely there is also a nest not far away, where several other snakes might hide. Similarly, a query that causes permanent blockings might be the indication for code that generates a range of misbehaving queries. It can be same code or different pieces of code. One can attempt to improve the performance of a query that leads to blockings by adding more resources on the server or by optimizing SQL Server’s internals, though one can’t compensate for poor programming. When possible, one needs to tackle the problem at the source, otherwise performance improvements are only temporary.
Snakes can kill you in sleep
When wondering into the wild as well when having snakes as pets one must take all measures to assure that nobody’s health is endangered. Same principle should apply to databases as well, and the first line of defense resides in actively monitoring the blockings and addressing them timely as they occur. Being too confident that nothing happens and no taking the necessary precautions can prove to be a bad strategy when a problem occurs. In some situations, the damage might be acceptable in comparison with the effort and costs needed to build the monitoring infrastructure, though for critical systems it can come with important costs.
Having snakes as pets doesn’t seem like a good idea, and there are so many reasons why one shouldn’t do it (see PETA’s reasons)! On the other side, there are also people with uncommon hobbies, that not only limit themselves at having a snake pet, but try to tame them, to have them behave like pets. There are people who breed snakes to harness their venom for various purposes, occupation that requires handling snakes closely. There are also people who brought their relation with snakes at level of art, since ancient Egypt snake charming being a tradition in countries from Southeast Asia, Middle East, and North Africa. Even if not all snakes are tameable, snake’s taming and charming is possible. In the process the tamer must deprogram or control snakes’ behavior, following a specific methodology in a safe environment.
No matter how much one tries to avoid persistent blockings, one can learn from troubleshooting blockings, about their sources, behavior as well about own limitations. One complex blocking can be a good example with which one can test his knowledge about SQL Server internals as well about applications’ architecture. Each blocking provides a scenario in which one can learn something.
When fighting with a blocking, it’s wise to do it within a safe environment, typically a test or development environment. Fighting with it in a production environment can cause unnecessary stress and damage. So, if you don’t have a safe environment in which to carry the fight, then build one and try to keep the same essential characteristics as in production environment!
There will be also situations in which one must fight with a blocking in the production environment. Then, be careful in not damaging the data as well the environment, and take all the needed precautions!
The comparison between snakes and blockings might not be perfect, though hopefully it will imprint in reader’s mind the dangers of handling blockings inappropriately and increase the awareness in what concerns related topics.
Monday, January 02, 2017
“Documentation is a love letter that you write to your future self.”
For programmers as well for other professionals who write code, documentation might seem a waste of time, an effort few are willing to make. On the other side documenting important facts can save time sometimes and provide a useful base for building own and others’ knowledge. I found sometimes on the hard way what I needed to document. With the hope that others will benefit from my experience, here are my lessons learned:
Lesson #1: Document your worked tasks
“The more transparent the writing, the more visible the poetry.”
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Personally I like to keep a list with what I worked on a daily basis – typically nothing more than 3-5 words description about the task I worked on, who requested it, and eventually the corresponding project, CR or ticket. I’m doing it because it makes easier to track my work over time, especially when I have to retrieve some piece of information that is somewhere else in detail documented.
Within the same list one can track also the effective time worked on a task, though I find it sometimes difficult, especially when one works on several tasks simultaneously. In theory this can be used to estimate further similar work. One can use also a categorization distinguishing for example between the various types of work: design, development, maintenance, testing, etc. This approach offers finer granularity, especially in estimations, though more work is needed in tracking the time accurately. Therefore track the information that worth tracking, as long there is value in it.
Documenting tasks offers not only easier retrieval and base for accurate estimations, but also visibility into my work, for me as well, if necessary, for others. In addition it can be a useful sensemaking tool (into my work) over time.
Lesson #2: Document your code
“Always code as if the guy who ends up maintaining your code will be
a violent psychopath who knows where you live.”
There are split opinions over the need to document the code. There are people who advise against it, and probably one of most frequent reasons is rooted in Agile methodology. I have to stress that Agile values “working software over comprehensive documentation”, fact that doesn’t imply the total absence of documentation. There are also other reasons frequently advanced, like “there’s no need to document something that’s already self-explanatory “(like good code should be), “no time for it”, etc. Probably in each statement there is some grain of truth, especially when considering the fact that in software engineering there are so many requirements for documentation (see e.g. ISO/IEC 26513:2009).
Without diving too deep in the subject, document what worth documenting, however this need to be regarded from a broader perspective, as might be other people who need to review, modify and manage your code.
Documenting code doesn’t resume only to the code being part of a “deliverables”, but also to intermediary code written for testing or other activities. Personally I find it useful to save within the same fill all the scripts developed within same day. When some piece of code has a “definitive” character then I save it individually for reuse or faster retrieval, typically with a meaningful name that facilitates file’s retrieval. With the code it helps maybe to provide also some metadata like: a short description and purpose (who and when requested it).
Code versioning can be used as a tool in facilitating the process, though not everything worth versioning.
Lesson #3: Document all issues as well the steps used for troubleshooting and fixing
“It’s not an adventure until something goes wrong.”
Independently of the types of errors occurring while developing or troubleshooting code, one of the common characteristics is that the errors can have a recurring character. Therefore I found it useful to document all the errors I got in terms of screenshots, ways to fix them (including workarounds) and, sometimes also the steps followed in order to troubleshoot the problem.
Considering that the issues are rooted in programming fallacies or undocumented issues, there is almost always something to learn from own as well from others’ errors. In fact, that was the reasons why I started the “SQL Troubles” blog – as a way to document some of the issues I met, to provide others some help, and why not, to get some feedback.
Lesson #4: Document software installations and changes in configurations
At least for me this lesson is rooted in the fact that years back quite often release candidate as well final software was not that easy to install, having to deal with various installation errors rooted in OS or components incompatibilities, invalid/not set permissions, or unexpected presumptions made by the vendor (e.g. default settings). Over the years installation became smoother, though such issues are still occurring. Documenting the installation in terms of screenshots with the setup settings allows repeating the steps later. It can also provide a base for further troubleshooting when the configuration within the software changed or as evidence when something goes wrong.
Talking about changes occurring in the environment, not often I found myself troubleshooting something that stopped working, following to discover that something changed in the environment. It’s useful to document the changes occurring in an environment, importance stressed also in “Configuration Management” section of ITIL® (Information Technology Infrastructure Library).
Lesson #5: Document your processes
“Verba volant, scripta manent.” Latin proverb
"Spoken words fly away, written words remain."
In process-oriented organizations one has the expectation that the processes are documented. One can find that it’s not always the case, some organization relying on the common or individual knowledge about the various processes. Or it might happen that the processes aren’t always documented to the level of detail needed. What one can do is to document the processes from his perspective, to the level of detail needed.
Lesson #6: Document your presumptions
“Presumption first blinds a man, then sets him a running.”
Probably this is more a Project Management related topic, though I find it useful also when coding: define upfront your presumptions/expectations – where should libraries lie, the type and format of content, files’ structure, output, and so on. Even if a piece of software is expected to be a black-box with input and outputs, at least the input, output and expectations about the environment need to be specified upfront.
Lesson #7: Document your learning sources
“Intelligence is not the ability to store information, but to know where to find it.”
Computer specialists are heavily dependent on internet to keep up with the advances in the field, best practices, methodologies, techniques, myths, and other knowledge. Even if one learns something, over time the degree of retention varies, and it can decrease significantly if it wasn’t used for a long time. Nowadays with a quick search on internet one can find (almost) everything, though the content available varies in quality and coverage, and it might be difficult to find the same piece of information. Therefore, independently of the type of source used for learning, I found it useful to document also the information sources.
Lesson #8: Document the known as well the unknown
“A genius without a roadmap will get lost in any country but an average person
with a roadmap will find their way to any destination.”
Over the years I found it useful to map and structure the learned content for further review, sometimes considering only key information about the subject like definitions, applicability, limitations, or best practices, while other times I provided also a level of depth that allow me and others to memorize and understand the topic. As part of the process I attempted to keep the copyright attributions, just in case I need to refer to the source later. Together with what I learned I considered also the subjects that I still have to learn and review for further understanding. This provides a good way to map what I known as well what isn’t know. One can use for this a rich text editor or knowledge mapping tools like mind mapping or concept mapping.
Documentation doesn’t resume only to pieces of code or software but also to knowledge one acquires, its sources, what it takes to troubleshoot the various types of issues, and the work performed on a daily basis. Documenting all these areas of focus should be done based on the principle: “document everything that worth documenting”.
Saturday, November 05, 2016
I was playing this week with a few datasets downloaded from the web on various topics, trying to torture the data until they’ll confess something. A few of the datasets were prepared for load into a MySQL database as individual INSERT INTO statements. They were containing between 100000 and a few millions of records. While looking at the big but slim datasets in SSMS (SQL Server Management Studio) and reconciling the differences between MySQL and SQL Server I got several times the System.OutOfMemoryException exception, SSMS crashing one or two times. That should be ok, given the number of records, though I was surprised that I got the same error message while executing the INSERT INTO statements for one of the smallest datasets which had about 300000 records:
„An error occurred while executing batch. Error message is: Exception of type 'System.OutOfMemoryException' was thrown”
Kb 2874903 brings some light into the topic – SSMS is still a 32-bit process and thus limited to 2GB of memory. The Kb offers three methods to avoid this issue. The first two, outputting the query results to text or file didn’t worked. The third method based on using sqlcmd utility worked smoothly with a syntax like the one below:
sqlcmd -i “<file_name.sql>” -d “<database name>”
So it doesn’t matter that you’re having a supercomputer and that working with big datasets becomes a necessity nowadays, this limitation can make data loading just a little bit more complicated. On one side, it’s true that when dealing with such datasets is probably recommended to use directly sqlcmd to execute the scripts. On the other side, independently from this type of problem, even if understandable from the need of keeping backwards compatibility with 32-bit platforms/solutions, it’s hard to digest the fact that Microsoft keeps some of its products 32-bit based when SQL Server is targeting 64-bit platforms. One has same problem when using BIDS (Business Intelligence Development Studio), developing SSRS, SSIS or SSAS solutions under 32-bit and having maybe to deploy the code as 64-bit (e.g. SQL Server Agent). From my point of view most of the issues I had were when dealing with proprietary drivers like the ones for Oracle or even for MS Office. In addition in SSIS there could be features that are only available in 32-bit versions, or have limitations on 64-bit computers (see ). As it seems also the SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) will have similar drawbacks…
Anyway, sqlcmd utility saved the day with a minimum of overhead. Unfortunately it’s not always that easy to solvethe compatibility issues between 32-bit and 64-bit software and platforms.
 Microsoft Support (2013) Kb 2874903: "System.OutOfMemoryException" exception when you execute a query in SQL Server Management Studio https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2874903
 MSDN (2016) SQL Server 2016: sqlcmd Utility https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms162773.aspx
 MSDN (2016) SQL Server 2016: Use the sqlcmd Utility https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms180944.aspx
 MSDN (2012) Introducing Business Intelligence Development Studio https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173767.aspx
 SQL Server 2008 R2: 64 bit Considerations for Integration Services https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms141766(v=sql.105).aspx
Wednesday, March 02, 2016
According to Gartner, the world's leading information technology research and advisory company, Self-Service BI (aka self-service analytics, ad-hoc analysis, personal analytics), for short SSBI, is a “form of business intelligence (BI) in which line-of-business professionals are enabled and encouraged to perform queries and generate reports on their own, with nominal IT support” .
Reading between the lines, SSBI presumes the existence of an infrastructure made of tools to support it (aka self-service BI tools), direct or indirect access to row data and/or data models for the users, and the skillset needed in order to work with data and answer to business problems/questions.
A Little History
The concept of self-service is not new, it just got “rebranded” and transformed into a business opportunity. The need for business users to perform ad-hoc analyses was always there in organizations, especially in the ones not having the right infrastructure for harnessing their data. Even since the 90s with the appearance of products like MS Excel or MS Access in many organizations users were forced by the state of art to learn how to use such products in order to get the answers they needed from the data. Users started building personal solutions, many of them temporary, intended to fill the reporting gaps organizations had. With a little effort and relatively small investment users had the possibility of playing with the data, understanding the data, identifying and solving problems in the business. They acquired thus a certain level of business expertise and data awareness becoming valuable resources in the organization.
With time such solutions grew in scope and data volume, gained broader visibility and reached deeper in organizations, some of them becoming team, departmental or cross-departmental solutions. What grows uncontrolled with time starts to have negative impact on the environment. First tools’ management became a problem because the solutions needed to be backed-up and maintained regularly, then other problems started to surface: security of data, inefficient data processing as increasing volumes of data were processed on local computers and transferred over the network, data and effort were duplicated, different versions of reality existed as different numbers were reported, numbers that were reflecting different definitions, knowledge about the business or data-analysis skillsets. The management needed a more consolidated and standardized effort in order to address these problems. Organizations were forced or embraced the idea of investing money in modern BI solutions, in more powerful servers capable of handling a larger amount of requests, in flexible data models that facilitate data consumption, in data quality initiatives. Thus through various projects a considerable number of such solutions were converted into more standardized and performant BI solutions, the IT department being in control of the changes and new requests.
Back to Present
With IT in control of the reporting requirements the business is forced to rely on the rapidity with which IT is able to address new requirements. Some organizations acquired internal resources in order to build reports and afferent infrastructure in-house, others created partnerships with vendors, or approached a combination of the two. As the volume of requirements isn’t uniform over time, the business has to wait several days between the time a requirement was addressed to IT and a solution was provided. In business terms a few of days of waiting for data can equate with the loss of an opportunity, a decision taken too late, decision that could have broader impact.
A few years ago things started to change when the ad-hoc analysis concept was rebranded as self-service and surfaced as trend. This time vendors like Qlik, Tableau, MicroStrategy or Microsoft, some of the main SSBI vendors, are offering easy to use and rich in functionality tools for data integration, visualization and discovery, tools that reflect the advances made in graphics, data storage and processing technologies (e.g. in-memory databases, parallel processing). With just a few drag-and-drops users are able to display details, aggregate data, identify trends and correlations between data. In addition the tools can make use of the existing data models available in data warehouses, data marts and other types of data repositories, including the rich set of open data available on the web.
Looking at the Future
Like its predecessors SSBI seems to address primarily data analysts and data-aware business users, however in time is expected to be adopted by more organizations and become more mature where already adopted. Of course, some of the problems from the early days more likely will resurface though through governance, better architectures and tools, integration with other BI capabilities, trainings and awareness most of the problems will be overcome. More likely there will be also organizations in which SSBI will fail. In the end each organization will need to find by itself the value of SSBI.
 Gartner (2016) Self-Service Analytics [Online] Available from: http://www.gartner.com/it-glossary/self-service-analytics
 Gartner (2016) Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms, by Josh Parenteau, Rita L. Sallam, Cindi Howson, Joao Tapadinhas, Kurt Schlegel, Thomas W. Oestreich [Online] Available from: https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2XXET8P&ct=160204&st=sb
Saturday, February 27, 2016
While looking over “Business Intelligence Concepts and Platform Capabilities” Coursera MOOC resources for Module 2 I run into two similar articles from Solutions Review, respectively Information Age. What caught my attention was the easiness with which the complexity of BI “myth” is approached in both columns.
According to the two sources the capabilities of nowadays BI tools “enabled business users to easily identify and present trends in an impactful way” , and “do not require an expert at the helm” . It became thus simpler for users to independently query data and create interactive reports and presentations . In both columns one can read between the lines that the simplicity of using BI tools is equivalent with negating the complexity of BI, which from my point of view is false. In fact here are regarded especially the self-service BI tools, in trend nowadays, that allow users to easily perform ad-hoc analysis with a minimal involvement from IT. Self-service BI is only a subset of what BI for organizations means, and just a capability from the many BI capabilities an organization needs in theory, even if some organizations might use it extensively.
Beyond the Surface
A BI tool is not a BI solution per se, even if many generic BI solutions for different systems are available out of the box. This is one of the biggest confusion managers, users and unfortunately also BI professionals make. A BI tool offers the technological basis for creating a BI infrastructure, though it comes with no guarantees. It takes a well-defined IT and business strategy, one or more successful projects, skillful developers and users in order to harness the BI investment.
On the other side it’s also true that organizations can obtain results also from less, though BI doesn’t equates with any ad-hoc analysis performed by users, even if they use BI tools for this purpose. BI is not only about tools, reporting and revealing trends in the data. BI often implies a holistic knowledge about the business and certain data awareness, without which users will start aggregating and comparing apples with pears and wonder why they taste and look different.
If everything were so simple then why so many BI projects fail to deliver what’s expected? Why so many managers complain that they don’t have the data they need, when they need them? Sure maybe the problem lies in over-complexifying the whole BI landscape and treating everything from a high-level, though that’s more likely not it.
It’s a Teamwork Knowledge Game
BI is or needs to be monitoring and problem solving oriented. This requires a deep understanding about processes and business. There are business users and also BI professionals who don’t have the knowledge one needs in order to approach a business problem. One can see that from the premises they have, the questions they raise, the data they consider, the models they build, and the results.
From a BI professional’s perspective, even if one has a broad knowledge about various businesses, one often lacks the insight in a given business. BI professionals can seldom provide adequate BI solutions without input and feedback from the business. Some BI professionals rely too much on their knowledge, same as the business sometimes expects a maximum output from BI professionals by providing a minimum of input.
Considering the business users, quite often their focus and knowledge cover only the data boundaries of their department, while many problems extend over those boundaries. They know facts that are not necessarily reflected in the data. Even if they are closer to the data than other parties, they still lack some data-awareness (including statistical awareness) in order to approach problems.
Somebody was saying ironically when talking about users’ data and problem solving skills - “not everybody is a Bill Gates or Steve Jobs”. Continuing the idea, one can’t expect users to act as such. For sure there are many business users who are better problem solvers than BI consultants, though on the other side one can’t expect that the average business user will have the same skillset as an experienced BI consultant. This is in fact one of the problems of self-service BI. Probably with time and effort organization will develop such resources, though some help from BI professionals will be still needed. Without a good cooperation between the business and BI professionals an organization might not have the hoped results when investing in BI
More on Complexity
The complexity arises when one tries to make more with the data, especially the data found in raw form. Usually the complexity of raw data can be addressed by building a logical or physical model that allows easier consumption of data. Here is the point where the users find themselves overwhelmed, because for this is required a good knowledge of the physical data model and its semantics, the technical knowledge to build models and the skills to reengineer the logic available in the source systems. These are the themes BI professionals are supposed to excel in. Talking about models, they are the most difficult to build because they reflect various segments of the business, they reflect a breakdown of the complexity. It’s also the point where many BI projects fail as the built models don’t reflect the reality or aren’t capable to answer to business questions.
Coming back to the two columns, I have to point out that the complexity of a subject or domain can’t be judged based on how easy is to approach basic tasks. The complexity lies typically when one goes beyond the basics, when one dives into details. In case of BI its complexity starts when one attempts mixing various technologies and knowledge domains to model and solve daily business problems in an integrated, holistic, aligned, consistent and cost-effective manner. The more the technologies, the knowledge domains and constraints one has to consider, the more complex the BI landscape and solutions become.
On the other side this doesn’t mean that the BI infrastructure can’t be simplified, that BI can’t rely heavily or exclusively on self-service BI solutions. However for each strategy there are advantages and disadvantages and one more likely has to consider both sides of the coin in the process. And self-service BI has its own trade-offs, weaknesses that can be transformed in strengths with time.
When one considers nowadays BI tools capabilities, ad-hoc analyses are relatively easy to perform and can lead to results, though such analyses don’t equate with BI and the simplicity with which they are performed don’t necessarily imply that BI is simple as a whole. When one considers the complexity of nowadays businesses, the more one dives in various problems a business has, the more complex the BI landscape seems. In the end it’s in each organization powers to simplify and harmonize its BI infrastructure to a degree that its business goals aren’t affected negatively.
 Information Age (2015) 5 Myths about Intelligence, by Ben Rossi, [Online] Available from: http://www.information-age.com/technology/information-management/123460271/5-myths-about-business-intelligence
 SolutionsReview (2015) Top 5 Business Intelligence Myths Revealed, by Timothy King, [Online] Available from: http://solutionsreview.com/business-intelligence/top-5-business-intelligence-myths-revealed
 Gartner (2016) Magic Quadrant for Business Intelligence and Analytics Platforms, by Josh Parenteau, Rita L. Sallam, Cindi Howson, Joao Tapadinhas, Kurt Schlegel, Thomas W. Oestreich [Online] Available from: https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-2XXET8P&ct=160204&st=sb
 Coursera (2016) Business Intelligence Concepts, Tools, and Applications MOOC, led by Jahangir Karimi, University of Colorado, [Online] Available from: https://www.coursera.org/learn/business-intelligence-tools
Friday, May 29, 2015
The pace with which technologies and the business changes becomes faster and faster. If 5-10 years back a vendor needed 3-5 years before coming with a new edition of a product, nowadays each 1-2 years a new edition is released. The release cycles become shorter and shorter, vendors having to keep up with the changing technological trends. Changing trends allow other vendors to enter the market with new products, increasing thus the competition and the need for responsiveness from other vendors. On one side the new tools/editions bring new functionality which mainly address technical and business requirements. On the other side existing tools functionality gets deprecated and superset by other. Knowledge doesn’t resume only to the use of tools, but also in the methodologies, procedures, best practices or processes used to make most of the respective products. Evermore, the value of some tools increases when mixed, flexible infrastructures relying on the right mix of tools working together.
For an IT person keeping current with the advances in technologies is a major requirement. First of all because knowing modern technologies is a ticket for a good and/or better paid job. Secondly because many organizations try to incorporate in their IT infrastructure modern tools that would allow them increase the ROI and achieve further benefits. Thirdly because, as I’d like to believe, most of the IT professionals are eager to learn new things, keep up with the novelty. Being an adept of the continuous learning philosophy is also a way to keep the brain challenged, other type of challenge than the one we meet in daily tasks.
Face-to-face or computer-based trainings (CBTs) are the old-fashioned ways of keeping up-to-date with the advances in technologies though paradoxically not all organizations afford to train their IT employees. Despite of affordable CBTs, face-to-face trainings are quite expensive for the average IT person, therefore the IT professional has to reorient himself to other sources of knowledge. Fortunately many important Vendors like Microsoft or IBM provide in one form or another through Knowledge Bases (KB), tutorials, forums, presentations and Blogs a wide range of resources that could be used for learning. Similar resources exist also from similar parties, directly or indirectly interested in growing the knowledge pool.
Nowadays reading a book or following a course it isn’t anymore a requirement for learning a subject. Blogs, tutorials, articles and other types of similar material can help more. Through their subject-oriented focus, they can bring some clarity in a small unit of time. Often they come with references to further materials, bring fresh perspectives, and are months or even years ahead books or courses. Important professionals in the field can be followed on blogs, Twitter, LinkedIn, You Tube and other social media platforms. Seeing in what topics they are interested in, how they code, what they think, maybe how they think, some even share their expertize ad-hoc when asked, all of this can help an IT professional considerably if he knows how to take advantage of these modern facilities.
MOOCs start to approach IT topics, and further topics that can become handy for an IT professional. Most of them are free or a small fee is required for some of them, especially if participants’ identity needs to be verified. Such courses are a valuable resource of information. The participant can see how such a course is structured, what topics are approached, and what’s the minimal knowledge base required; the material is almost the same as in a normal university course, and in the end it’s not the piece of paper with the testimonial that’s important, but the change in perspective we obtained by taking the course. In addition the MOOC participant can interact with people with similar hobbies, collaborate with them on projects, and why not, something useful can come out of it. Through MOOCs or direct Vendor initiatives, free or freeware versions of software is available. Sometimes the whole functionality is available for personal use. The professional is therefore no more dependent on the software he can use only at work. New possibilities open for the person who wants to learn.
Maximizing the Knowledge Value
Despite the considerable numbers of knowledge resources, for an IT professional the most important part of his experience comes from hand-on experience acquired on the job. If the knowledge is not rooted in hand-on experience, his knowledge remains purely theoretical, with minimal value. Therefore in order to maximize the value of his learning, an IT professional has to attempt using his knowledge as much and soon as possible in praxis. One way to increase the value of experience is to be involved in projects dealing with new technologies or challenges that would allow a professional to further extend his knowledge base. Sometimes we can choose such projects or gain exposure to the technologies, though other times no such opportunities can be sized or identified.
Probably an IT professional can use in his daily duties 10-30% of what he learned. This percentage can be however increased by involving himself in other types of personal or collective (open source or work) projects. This would allow exploring the subjects from other perspective. Considering that many projects involve overtime, many professionals have also a rich personal life, it looks difficult to do that, though not impossible.
Even if not on a regular basis achievable, a professional can allocate 1-3 hours on a weekly basis from his working time for learning something new. It can be something that would help directly or indirectly his organization, though sometimes it pays off to learn technologies that have nothing to do with the actual job. Somebody may argue that the respective hours are not “billable”, are a waste of time and other resources, that the technologies are not available, that there’s lot of due tasks, etc. With a little benevolence and with the right argumentation also such criticism can be silenced. The arguments can be for example based on the fact that a skilled professional can be with time more productive, a small investment in knowledge can have later a bigger benefit for both parties – employee and employer. An older study was showing that when IT professionals was given some freedom to approach personal projects at work, and use some time for their own benefit, the value they bring for an organization increased. There are companies like Google who made from this type of work a philosophy.
A professional can also allocate 1-3 hours from his free time while commuting or other similar activities. Reading something before going to bed or as relaxation after work can prove to be a good shut-down for the brain from the daily problems. Where there’s interest in learning something new a person will find the time, no matter how busy his schedule is. It’s important however to do that on a regular basis, and with time the hours and knowledge accumulate.
It’s also important to have a focused effort that will bring some kind of benefit. Learning just for the sake of learning brings little value on investment for a person if it’s not adequately focused. For sure it’s interesting and fun to browse through different topics, it’s even recommended to do so occasionally, though on the long run if a person wants to increase the value of his knowledge, he needs somehow to focus the knowledge within a given direction and apply that knowledge.
Direction we obtain by choosing a career or learning path, and focusing on the direct or indirect related topics that belong to that path. Focusing on the subjects related to a career path allows us to build our knowledge further on existing knowledge, understanding a topic fully. On the other side focusing on other areas of applicability not directly linked with our professional work can broaden our perspective by looking at one topic from another’s topic perspective. This can be achieved for example by joining the knowledge base of a hobby we have with the one of our professional work. In certain configurations new opportunities for joint growth can be identified.
The value of knowledge increases primarily when it’s used in day-to-day scenarios (a form of learning by doing). It would be useful for example for a professional to start a project that can bring some kind of benefit. It can be something simple like building a web page or a full website, an application that processes data, a solution based on a mix of technologies, etc. Such a project would allow simulating to some degree day-to-day situations, when the professional is forced to used and question some aspects, to deal with some situations that can’t be found in textbook or other learning material. If such a project can bring a material benefit, the value of knowledge increases even more.
Another way to integrate the accumulated knowledge is through blogging and problem-solving. Topic or problem-oriented blogging can allow externalizing a person’s knowledge (aka tacit knowledge), putting knowledge in new contexts into a small focused unit of work, doing some research and see how other think about the same topic/problem, getting feedback, correcting or improving some aspects. It’s also a way of documenting the various problems identified while learning or performing a task. Blogging helps a person to improve his writing communication skills, his vocabulary and with a little more effort can be also a visit card for his professional experience.
Trying to apply new knowledge in hand-on trainings, tutorials or by writing a few lines of code to test functionality and its applicability, same as structuring new learned material into notes in the form of text or knowledge maps (e.g. concept maps, mind maps, causal maps, diagrams, etc.) allow learners to actively learn the new concepts, increasing overall material’s retention. Even if notes and knowledge maps don’t apply the learned material directly, they offer a new way of structuring the content and resources for further enrichment and review. Applied individually, but especially when combined, the different types of active learning help as well maximize the value of knowledge with a minimum of effort.
The bottom line – given the fast pace with which new technologies enter the market and the business environment evolves, an IT professional has to keep himself up-to-date with nowadays technologies. He has now more means than ever to do that – affordable computer-based training, tutorials, blogs, articles, videos, forums, studies, MOOC and other type of learning material allow IT professionals to approach a wide range of topics. Through active, focused, sustainable and hand-on learning we can maximize the value of knowledge, and in the end depends of each of us how we use the available resources to make most of our learning experience.