Aug 28 2012

Please, Call Me Richard

I presented a session at the SQL Saturday event in Oklahoma City last weekend. The event itself was pretty good. The organizers put everything together pretty well and the venue was quite nice. Plus, since I grew up in Oklahoma (Tulsa), it was a chance to go home. The event was good, but my presentation went a little downhill.

The name of the session is “Top Tips for Better Stored Procedure Performance.” I should rename it to just say “T-SQL Query Performance” because it’s not focused on stored procedures, but on queries. The presentation is 1/3 talking about how you write your queries, naming syntax, formatting, etc. The second 2/3 is all about common mistakes made in writing T-SQL such as using NO_LOCK everywhere, nesting views, joining and nesting multi-statement table-valued user defined functions, operations on columns that prevent index usage, etc. It really is a session that could be sub-titled “You’re doing it wrong.” I’m trying to deliver a hard message and offer alternatives.

From the start of the session, it felt rushed. Not sure what happened, but it was a little out of my control and it shouldn’t have been. Still, I hit most of the major points. I have a few points that I can gloss over for time and I found that I was glossing a little more than I wanted. However, I finished it all up and I thought I had the major points I wanted to hit well covered. I had some fun with the audience and people were laughing at the right spots. So, while a little rocky, it was basically good. Until I saw this in the evals:

No, please, call me Richard

And that, is hands down, the single worst comment I’ve ever received. Ever.

So, of course, I went through the rest of the evals, in a panic. There were about 72 people in the audience and I received 60 evaluations. That’s when I spotted another set of comments that said “All we did was whine about bad code. Very few constructive and helpful comments… Informal and overly-expressive, and whiney[sic] presentation style left me feeling like he was trying to cover up not really knowing what he was talking about.”

Great. First I’m a dick and now I’m a “whiney” dick. A dick who used whining to cover up a lack of knowledge.

There were two measures offered on the front; “Expectations” and “Overall quality of the presentation.” The Expectations could be “Did Not Meet”, “Met”, or “Exceeded.” The quality question was numbered 1 to 5 with 5 being the best. Out of 60 evals, 41, or 68%, rated me as “Exceeded.” 28% (17) rated me as “Met” expectations. I received only 2 “Did not Meet” And before you think it’s just the two highly negative comments, you’d be wrong. Another person wrote “Too simple starting out. No time left when getting to the good stuff.” Which, I can live with as a very fair representation. Oh, but the dick commenter, he gave me a “Met” expectations. With the scores, 73% (44) gave me a 5 and 25%(15) gave me a 4. There was a single 1 from the “whiney” guy. Yep, the dick person gave me a 4. In short, a pretty fair representation with good reviews and fair comments, except for the outliers.

I do feel like I didn’t give as good a presentation as I can. It did feel rushed to me, making that one comment quite valid, but I sure don’t see where I came across as a whiny dick. The other comments were pretty good, including this “Not only informative, but also entertaining” and “Very useful pointers & suggestions! Good Q&A interaction.” So I’m seriously at a loss to understand the extreme nature of these two comments. I’m used to the “you were too basic” next to the “you were too advanced” comments. That’s pretty normal. This presentation is meant to pop bubbles (nesting views leads to problems, sorry you don’t like that statement of fact, but that doesn’t make it less true). But whiny dick… And, one guy says I’m covering up a lack of knowledge and the other says I’m a know-it-all.

Let’s just say I’m going into a little navel gazing to see if I can make a few adjustments to my presentation style.

Thanks everyone who attended, and thank you, everyone, for the feedback. It’s appreciated.

Jan 31 2012

Tech on Tap v1.1 Wrap-up

DSC06558The first ever Tech on Tap event was held on Saturday, January 27th, 2012 at the Stone Cellar Brewpub in Appleton, WI. If you weren’t there, well, you missed it. Notice that keyword in that earlier sentence, Brewpub. Yes, the Tech on Tap events (and there will be more) are specifically designed to mix Technology and Beer in a learning and networking event with a single focus. This first event was all about virtualization.

The space where the event was held was the back bar of the Brewpub in a private room. The layout of the tables wasn’t perfect for presenting, but they were very conducive to networking. Other than that, the space was just excellent.

The first presenter was Brian Lewis (blog) from Microsoft. He spoke about virtualization in general and Hyperv in particular. It was a good overview of the product and only occasionally strayed into marketing hype (sorry, it did, but only a little). He had good questions and good audience interaction.

Then we had lunch (and some beer). The food was good (the beer was better, try the IPA). Then it was on to the next presentation.

This one was a more general overview of the topic of virtualization with a heavy emphasis on VMWare given by Bob Plankers (blog|twitter). Wow! All I can is Wow. Bob is a great presenter who put out excellent information AND he was very funny. I’m pretty sure he had the most one-liners retweeted during the entire day, but he was still churning out really excellent material.

Then we had more beer including several flights of samples of all the beer made at Stone Cellar. Wow! Almost as good as Bob’s presentation.

Then it was time for Jes Schultz Borland (blog|twitter) and I to present. Our topic was “Virtually Monitoring SQL Server.” We chose as our theme for the presentation the Dropkick Murphy’s and we used their songs as slide titles along with the graphics (we’re in a brewpub for crying out loud, we need to have a little fun here). She and I did an unrehearsed back & forth on the slides, tossing pieces of information back and forth on how to keep an eye on your servers that running virtually. I think it went really well. We need to rehearse it more so we’re more natural on transitions. A couple of times I tossed the topic to her and she wasn’t ready. I know I stood there slack-jawed several times when she did the same to me. But in general, it seemed really natural. I think we’ll polish the slides and the deliver to submit it for the PASS Summit.

We finished the day with a general QA for about 1/2 hour and then another hour of networking (with more beer). It was a really excellent event.

The organizers (pictured above) did a good job putting it together. The technical information was excellent. The speakers (not talking about myself here) were top notch and really delivered on their material. I had a great time and learned some things at the same time. You can’t ask for more.

The next event will be on Sharepoint. If you’re anywhere even close to Wisconsin and a Sharepoint geek, start making plans.

Jan 13 2012

Friday SQL Nugget #1

polishGee thanks Jes (blog|twitter). Just what I wanted, a little extra work on a Friday afternoon. I used to like you.

We have a tagging theme started by Ted Krueger (blog|twitter) who I also used to like.

The theme is: Deciding that I need to delete and start all over

Lordy I hate this one. See, I find it easy to decide that I need to delete and start all over. My challenging task is persevering. But… here’s the rub. Because my challenge is persevering, I have a tendency to try to persevere when I really should be throwing in the towel.

I don’t have a technical example of this ready at hand (I did mention it was the afternoon on a Friday, right?), but I do have a presentation example. One of my presentations from last year… let’s say the topic wasn’t one I wanted to do. But, I had to. So I busted my hump on the slide deck. When it was done. I knew it was a steaming pile. But I sent it out for review anyway. Guess what. It was a steaming pile. They really didn’t like it, but suggested changes.

So I went back to work on the pile. Basically trying to take the substance, brown & smelling, and rearrange it to something resembling a pleasing shape. I worked at it. Hard. I tried different slides, jokes, anything I could think of to try to make this stuff resemble something of value. When I finally thought I had the pile in as pretty a shape as it was going to get, I sent it off to a second person for review. This person, a friend, didn’t pull a single punch. “Throw this out and try something completely different.”

Now that’s what I had wanted to do ever since I struggled through the first four or five versions of this slide deck, but I fought against my common sense and tried to do the hard work rather than take the “easy” way out and chuck it all and start all over.

Sometimes, you need another person’s perspective to realize what you’re vigorously polishing is not actually a diamond, but something entirely different.

I’ll tag… Gail Shaw (blog|twitter) cause it’s her turn.

Dec 19 2011

PASS Summit 2012 Evaluation Results

I say it all the time because it’s worth repeating, feedback is a gift. Good, bad or indifferent (well, not indifferent), feedback is a wonderful gift. Any time you appreciate a speaker, give them feedback. Any time you think a speaker could improve, give them feedback. Any time you hate a speaker, give them feedback. It’s really the best thing you can do.

With that in mind, I have a huge stack of gifts in front of me here, the evaluations from the PASS Summit.Thank you very much to each and every one of the 160 different evaluations I received. I presented three times at the summit, once on a pre-con with Gail Shaw called “All About Execution Plans,” one time in a spotlight session called “DMOs as a Shortcut for Performance Tuning,” and a 5 minute lightning talk called “Testing Your Backups, The Rant.”

All About Execution Plans

I worked hard prepping the pre-con. It’s my first one at the PASS Summit (and I hope not my last). Gail also worked hard. The two of us did all this work in opposite hemisphere’s on the planet. That means we didn’t really get to walk through the session until the day before. Our timing was off, and some of the advanced stuff was a little rushed late in the day. I think that might account for some of the scores. Regardless, that’s an explanation, not an excuse. Here’s how things broke down for us, 5 is good, 1 is bad:

Evaluation Question Rating
How would you rate the Speaker’s presentation skills? 4.53
How would you rate the Speaker’s knowledge of the subject? 4.80
How would you rate the accuracy of the session title, description and experience level to the actual session? 4.48
How would you rate the quality of the presentation materials? 4.25
Did you learn what you expected to learn? 4.28

Gail and I had a blast presenting this session. Maybe we were having too much fun. I’m very happy that our knowledge rating was good and high. Everything else, well, we missed the mark. I’m especially troubled by the low rating on the question of “Did you learn what you expected to learn?” I think that one shows that we didn’t deliver what we should have. If we were to do this again (and I think we should), I’d cut down the basics information quite a lot. We had almost 3 hours worth of introductory material. I suspect taking that down to about 90 minutes would help a lot. Then we’d have an additional 90 minutes on the other side to get into what the audience seemed to expect. Here are some of the comments (my responses are in parenthesis and typos outside of parenthesis are not mine):

  • I expected more from th performance solving demoes
  • Demo of what to look for in live systems with a high focus on “prevention” would have been very useful
  • Would have loved a deeper dive
  • Could have used little lower level but am happy anyway (there are only a few of these. Everything else was focused on the fact that the afternoon was rushed and the morning was basic)
  • It might have been better to spend less time on the mornig topics and get into disection of execution plans earlier. (see)
  • Explaining the properties was helpful (Yay! hit one of my keywords, everyone drink)
  • I was expected more on reding exectuion plans and tuning ex. plans
  • Way too academic. Don’t feel like I am translating anything back to work situations (that one hurts, seriously, it does. I thought I was bringing real world examples in, but must not have made enough of a point. Thank you)
  • Would have liked access to demo material before hand. Also, real life scenarios and troubleshooting techniques would have been useful (and another. Ouch)
  • Would have been nice to have screenshots of the demos (uh, no)
  • The combined knowledge of these two is amazing (The plan was, I say something Gail corrects me. That part worked)
  • You both have deep knowledge of the subject. You make a fantastic team. (lots like this)
  • Good flow, great at repeating questions out loud. Good at zooming in.
  • 1. Parse/algebraize/optimize
    2. The optimizer can lie, but usually doesn’t
    3. Look at selectt and properties in ssms, didn’t know about properties (another yay. That’s one thing I wanted to get across)
  • Go to a real trainer next time (And see, that’s not feedback. That’s snark. That’s commentary. But it’s not feedback)
  • Too much info so the speakers had to move swiftly and skip some basic concepts and made assumptions about the knowledge and skill levels of the students (see, hard to reconcile everything, but the consensus was, too many basics, not enough advanced stuff)

You get the idea. I think we’ve got some excellent and actionable material to build and improve this presentation. I’d present it again with Gail in a New York second.

DMOs as a Shortcut for Performance Tuning

This is the third year I gave this spotlight session. I was less than pleased with myself, the slides and the demos during the presentation (and I received some good feedback, that day, about it), but I tried hard. Evidently, trying hard paid off. I’m ranked 28th with this session in the conference over all. Yeah, hardly something to write home about unless the highest you’d ever been ranked before was 32nd. Improvement is improvement. There were 58 evals turned in out of 120 people attending.

Evaluation Question Rating
How would you rate the Speaker’s presentation skills? 4.67
How would you rate the Speaker’s knowledge of the subject? 4.86
How would you rate the accuracy of the session title, description and experience level to the actual session? 4.69
How would you rate the quality of the presentation materials? 4.62
Did you learn what you expected to learn? 4.59

With these levels of evals, I have nothing to complain about… I really need to get better at writing my abstracts. I’m hitting low on the actual session and expectations, so I’m clearly not communicating well. Oh yeah, I can find things to critique myself over any time I want. However, hit nice and high with the knowledge score and high enough with the presentation skills (although higher would be better). Lots of room for improvement, which is great. Here are a few of the comments:

  • That I’m missing a lot of valuable information and wasting a whole lot of time hunting the whumpus when users whinge! (Win!)
  • Should be serious!!! (really? I can’t. I try, but I can’t. I’m having fun with the technology and I’m going to smile and joke while I work, just because, sorry.)
  • Would have rated this at a 300 level but the pre-req listing was useful. Only reason I rate this as 300 is the underlying need to understand the various terms and columns within the DMO’s. To rate at 200, perhaps a slide at the start stating the things tha (interesting. I still think it’s 200, but I hate the thought that I’m leaving someone. What do you rate it if it’s 232?)
  • Big brain (that’s not all that’s big, if you know what I’m saying…What? I’m talking about my belly… what did you think? See, humor, can’t help it).
  • Great presentation. Clear, very easy to understand, seeks audience input which is good as it keeps the interest levels high. (Another Win! I do go for audience input. It’s vital to me as a presenter. I’m just not a “stand in front of the hall & lecture” kind of person).
  • I can use this info tomorrow.
  • Apply the material immediately! Thanks!
  • Dude; can’t you leave the results window up (not go back to query window) and just hit execute/F5 to re-execute? (interesting. The last several presentations, prior to this year, one of the complaints was that everything went to the bottom of the screen in the results. So now I output to the tab & more stuff is visible, but I can’t leave it on the screen… something to practice, leaving the results in place a beat or three longer… thank you, thank you. See, this is what feedback is all about)
  • We pay $$$ for this!!! (very unhappy person. Same guy that didn’t like the humor. I’m sorry. I do feel back for this person. I let them down, but I’m not sure how to improve from this one. I’m not going to joke less. Maybe a warning at the beginning, “I’m going to laugh at myself, our technologies, and other things while I present”)
  • The demos (script/execution capture) were boggy; this presentation was possibly an outlier.(great point. I did have some troubles with a script I’ve been running for, literally, years during this presentation. Weird. Thanks for the feedback)

You get the idea. Except for the guy upset at my attempts at humor (again, I am truly sorry), decent ratings and a few areas where I can try to improve. This is so useful. Thank you all.

Backup Testing: The Rant

Further proof of my inability to take things completely seriously, I communicated several ways to test your backups, but at a full throated roar. I hope it was useful as well as fun. A couple of comments:

  • SOME PRESENTERS ARE A LITTLE CRAZY BUT AWESOME (That could be for anyone, but I’m claiming it)
  • A CLOCK IN FRONT OF GRANT (the guy doing the timing was off, not me)
  • next time, make sure these LTs are recorded for YouTube ! (agreed)

That’s it. To everyone who filled out a sheet, thank you. I hope I can do better by you all next year.

Sep 16 2011

St. Louis SQL Server Users Group Feedback

You know I share what feedback I get from conferences. I don’t usually get feedback from users groups (well, I do, but it’s seldom written down and the bruises heal eventually). The St. Louis SQL Server Users Group did collect information. Since I share the other stuff, I may as well share this too.

They didn’t have a metric. It was just written down comments. Here are a few, my comments, as usual, will be in parenthesis:

  • Enjoyed the demos; Everything worked (ditto, the enjoying demos working part)
  • Good speaker; just dislike presentations w/ remote speakers.(Me too. I prefer interaction. I like seeing heads nodding or shaking or eyes rolling up so I know if I’m covering things well enough. Remote presentations are hard & can be very boring to watch)
  • Would have liked to have seen more how to fix the query with the messages provided by SQL. (I’m a bit at a loss for this one. The whole session was on how to fix the issue, parameter sniffing, and how to spot it, so I’m unsure what I missed)
  • Good presentation –very clear, good demos
  • Enjoyed the lively pace and examples

There were some more, but you get the idea. Thank you to everyone who submitted feedback. It’s always appreciated. It’s the one gift you can give people who present for you, so when given the opportunity to give that gift, please, do so.

Thanks again to the St. Louis SQL Server Users Group for allowing me to present. It’s really appreciated and I hope, next time, I can get out there in person.

Jun 27 2011

Presentations in Action

PresentationsInActionThe first book I read for my 12 goal oriented books was Jerry Weissman’s Presentations in Action: 80 Memorable Presentation Lessons from the Masters.

Up front, let me say, this book met my expectations. I expected to see a lot of things I already knew. I expected to learn a few new things. What I didn’t expect was more books for my reading list.

The book is broken down into 80 little stories and these are grouped into five sections talking about Content, Graphics, Delivery Skills, Q&A (dealing with it, not your questions), and Integration. The sections made a lot of sense even if a couple of the stories felt like they had been sort of shoe-horned into the section. Most of the stories made a lot of sense, and they really do offer a lot of good advice for presentations, big & small, live & recorded, private & public. And that’s good, because I’ve tended to have a single presentation style for all those events. Now I’m finally learning otherwise. Not only do you need to modify your message for the audience, something I was already aware of, but you need to modify your delivery for the size and location of that audience.

What I liked best was that Mr. Weissman put a lot of other reading in front of me. He not only presented interesting cases, but he told where they came from and related readings and other stuff along those lines. For me, it expanded the reach and usefulness of the book.

Some of the advice just isn’t going to be helpful. Such as “When in Doubt, Leave it Out.” I suppose if I were doing a keynote or some similar type of situation, this is useful advice, but most of my speaking is of the type “you have 90 minutes to fill, go.” You can’t cut that down to 45 minutes because you’ll get bad reviews, not kudos.

Some of the advice is excellent. I was already very aware of “I Can Read It Myself.” Others I’m realizing that I needed. For example, “In Q&A, Speed Kills,” just last week I presented at a user group, heard 3/4 of a question, and started answering. Unfortunately, I didn’t wait for 100% because when I was done, the person asking, finished, and my answer, which had run on for about 2 minutes was cut down to 2 words. Ouch. Lesson learned, a little late.

Some of the stories, well, let’s just say he used politics, which, makes sense because it’s all about communications and presentations. But… I don’t like getting a clear view of someone’s political leanings in a book of this sort. It just doesn’t belong here. If you can’t keep it neutral, don’t use that type of information, now matter how applicable and effective. If you do, and your biases slip through, it absolutely detracts from the effectiveness, and I’m sorry Mr. Weissman, but you were pretty clear and it was irksome for those who don’t agree with you.

That aside, this was an excellent read. It’s short, but extremely focused and very informative. If you’re just getting started as a speaker, I’d recommend getting a copy. If you’re experienced, I suspect you’ll still get something out of it.

Next up for my 12 is StrenghFinder 2.0.

Mar 28 2011

SQL Saturday #67 Wrap-up

Just… Wow. What an event. What a great group of people. I’m just so lucky to be involved with fantastic individuals like these. Thanks for having me out to play everyone, I really appreciated it.

SQL Saturday #67 started for me with my second FreeCon (follow the link for details on the first one). Brent Ozar (blog|twitter) put together another great session where we spent a lot of time talking about blogs and blogging as well as swoops through other topics. We, by the way, is like a who’s who of great SQL Server people. I’m not going to post the list just in case everyone doesn’t want to be outed. However, I found the event extremely useful. I have a ton of notes and action items for myself and I really need to get to work on them. I think you’ll begin to see a few changes around here, and over at my other blog (I can’t resist the occasional shameless plug, please forgive me). I may have to put together a sseparate blog post, just on the Freecon.

After the FreeCon I went to the speaker dinner. It was hosted by SQL Sentry (thanks guys). There were several MVPs and speakers from all over the country (including a contingent from Cleveland, reversing my earlier trip). I had the opportunity to meet a bunch of local people, a few speaking for the first time. If you take nothing else away from my rambling, remember this: Yes, these events are about the exchange of knowledge and skills, but even more, it’s about people.

The day of the event I was presenting in the morning. Which meant that I didn’t attend any of the morning sessions because I have a hard time focusing when I have to present in an hour or two. Instead, I ran through my slides, getting ready for my presentation (details below) and shot a few videos. In the afternoon I had to present again for my vendor slot. Only two people showed up. Getting people into the vendor sessions is something that SQL Saturday events should try harder at, and scheduling them at the same time as other sessions, probably hurts the vendors. Oh, and could the two guys who were there get in touch. I lost your contact info. Sorry.

Finally, I was able to go to a session. I went to see Jess Schultz Borland (blog|twitter) and her talk on “Make Your Voice Heard.” She covered Twitter, blogging, Linked-In and forums, all as a means to build your presence on the internet. It was a great session. She’s an excellent speaker, very engaging, highly energetic (something I strive for in my sessions, but she leaves me in the dust on that), and clearly informed on the topic. She had construction paper and crayons as part of an interactive approach with the audience. It worked really well. Most everyone came out of there with one or two new contacts on Twitter (or an interest in joining Twitter). If you get the chance to see this one (or anything else she does), I’d recommend it.

The second session I attended was unfortunately the final session of the day. But, it was a great session on DMOs from none other than the Man, Tim Ford (blog|twitter). Tim has a delivery style that is very relaxed and conversational. Using it he just puts out reams and reams of info. You really do want to get to his sessions when he talks. I took a bunch of notes and came away with great info. Tim attracted quite a few other speakers, so when questions & comments came from the audience, there was good information there too. Definitely worth going to and a great capper to a great day.

There was an after-party. It did include some SQL Karaoke. But that’s all I’m going to tell you about that. If you didn’t go, you missed out.

My Session:

My session was packed (go here to see a short video of the room) with people sitting in the aisles and around the edges. There were approximately 80 people and I received about 62 feedback forms (thank you, everyone). Here are the results and comments. The ratings were simple. Did the session meet, not meet, or exceed your expectations. Rate the quality of the session, 1-5. Then there were comments. Here are my percentages:

Met Expectations:

12 blank
1 Did Not Exceed – 2% (more on this)
21 Met – 41%
29 Exceeded – 57%


Blank: 3 – 5%
1: 0
2: 0
3: 5 – 8%
4: 16 – 25%
5: 39 – 62%

I’m very happy with the results. I quite happy that a large number of people thought I met expectations. I wouldn’t want there to be, even as many as I have, on Exceeded expectations. Because then it means that expectations of me were low indeed. Met is fine. The one person that wasn’t happy, I’ll talk about in a moment. Ratings on a scale like this are hard to judge, but clearly a majority of the people were happy. That’s good. Here is a selection of comments and some of my commentary about that comment:

“It would have been nice to know this was high-level rather than low level. Demos didn’t work too well.” I’ll take the hit on this one. I could have been more clear in the abstract, but it does say “introduce the query optimizer.” It doesn’t say anywhere, “deep dive,” “detailed,” or “low level.” Sorry. This is also the “Did Not Exceed” rating. I could have been a bit more clear, but it does show the importance of reading the abstract to understand what’s going on. If I’m talking about the optimizer and statistics and constraints and indexes, all in one hour… seriously, how detailed could it get? So while I’m sorry I didn’t reach one guy, I don’t think there’s a darn thing I could do for him beyond a little more clarification in the description.

“Sidekick in the corner was distracting” Actually this is my favorite comment. Tom LaRock (blog|twitter) was sitting in the corner at the front because there just wasn’t any room. He did make a few comments, but not that many. I didn’t see an issue with it, and still don’t. I’m just excited because, now, Tom is my sidekick. However, it is important to be aware that banter with the audience doe upset people. But, no, again this isn’t anything I’m taking action on beyond keeping myself aware. And of course starting Tom in the sidekick training program.

“Very good session. Please hide “Object Explorer” in SSMS for better code views” Crud. I usually do, but my head appears to have been elsewhere on this one. Thanks for the feedback. Something to correct going forward.

“Great information on the optimizer. Got some resources for further research”

“Very engaging and fun to listen to”

“Obvious enthusiasm & knowledge. Lots of pointers to useful things.” It’s like I paid this person. “Useful” is one of my target words for my brand, so I love seeing it in feedback. There’s a small indication I’m doing something right.

“Very informative.” Again, a key word. Your check is in the mail.

It was a great event. I’m happy I got to attend. Thanks to Wendy Pastrick (blog|twitter) and all her volunteers.

Oct 19 2010

Upcoming Speaking Engagements

I’ve got a couple of more sessions before the big two at the PASS Summit. Tomorrow night, October 20th, I’ll be speaking at the Southern New England Network Users Group on SQL Server Best Practices. It’s the first time I’ve talked on this topic, so it might be fun to watch. After that I’m previewing one of my two Summit presentations for Brian Knight (blog|twitter) and Pragmatic Works in a webinar on Identifying and Fixing Performance Problems Using Execution Plans. Go here to register.

After that, it’s off the PASS Summit.

Jun 15 2010

Sarasota SQL Server Users Group

Tonight I’m presenting for the Sarasota SQL Server Users Group. If you’re interested in attending, you can join in using this link. The topic will be “Query Performance Tuning 101.”

And in case you can’t make that, Thursday, June 17th, I’ll be on Quest’s Pain of the Week. It should be fun too.

Nov 10 2009

SQL Connections

I’m flying off to the SQL Server Magazine Connections part of DevConnections in Las Vegas later this afternoon. I’m presenting three sessions while I’m there, Wednesday & Thursday. I’m hanging around on Friday. Please track me down if you want to chat. Wednesday I’ll be putting on “Scouting Out Execution Plans” in the morning, 9:30-10:45AM. Thursday I’ve got two sessions, “MUQT: More Unnecessary Query Tuning” from 8:00-9:15AM (which should be a lot of fun at a developers conference), and “DMV’s for Performance Tuning” from 11:45-1:00PM. I’ve brought bribery material (signed books) to encourage interaction, so please stop by, ask questions, make comments, just don’t throw things (except for money).

I’ll blog a recap of each day from my point of view. I won’t be live-blogging the key notes because I’m not registered as press for this event, so I can be lazy. 

Please let me know where the parties are at night so I can eat for free. I look forward to meeting with you.