The Grim Leaper, Brazilionaire, The Redeemer, Mile High Hog, The Trevolution, Pogo De Chao, Mount Treverest, The Amazon Painforest, T-Bone, Rebound de Janeiro, Samba Mamba, The Condor, TB7, Copacaslamma, The Elevator, Brazilian Bench Lift, The Big Carnival, Trevon-Eleven, The Slamazon, Trayzorback, Air Brazile, Windmill Brazile, Blocka Nova
Wait types are the most misread numbers in SQL Server. So I caused six of them on purpose, one at a time. I took a profile of each while it was happening.
The lab is one table of 2.5 million rows, about 1.15 gigabytes, on SQL Server 2025. Every figure below is the wait recorded for my own session while the workload ran, not a server total. Where a wait behaved differently from its reputation, I have said so rather than tidied it away.
Each section carries a profile card with the reading of that wait. The measurements stay in the text, where they can keep the conditions they were taken under.
One number to hold in your head before we start. A lock wait in this lab cost 81,927 milliseconds across a single wait. A processor wait in the same lab cost 3 milliseconds across 398 waits.
Sorted by count and sorted by time, a wait list gives you two different answers. Only one of them is about your problem.
Read more here: blog.sqlauthority.com/2026/1โฆ
A customer asked a six-person team why their large invoices were billed slightly differently.
The answer was a four-line rounding rule. The person who wrote it had left eight months earlier.
The team asked their AI assistant. It explained the code perfectly and even offered a cleaner version. What it could not tell them was why the rule existed. It might have been a regulatory requirement, or a promise to a big customer. It might have been a workaround for a system shut down in 2021, or just a mistake nobody had noticed.
They left the code alone and told the customer the invoice was correct. That was true. Nobody in the company could say why it was true.
This is tribal knowledge, and AI makes losing it easier to miss. New engineers used to text the person who left. Now they ask the assistant, get a good answer about what the code does, and feel caught up. The old failure was loud. The new one feels like competence.
Two things that actually help:
1. ๐ ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐น๐ผ๐ด ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฝ๐ผ, ๐ป๐ฒ๐ ๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฑ๐ฒ. Four lines per decision: the choice, the alternative, the reason, and what would make this wrong. The last line matters most, because it tells the next person when they can safely undo it.
2. ๐ข๐ป๐ฒ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ต๐ผ๐๐ฟ ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐ฒ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ ๐น๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐. Skip the exit doc. Ask them: what breaks if a new person makes the obvious change? What looks wrong but is right? What failed before? Which customer deals live in no document?
The code is not the knowledge. It is the leftovers of a decision nobody wrote down.
Start the log this week. Then go ask your longest-serving person why things work the way they do.
Full post: blog.sqlauthority.com/2026/1โฆ#SQLServer#DataEngineering#AI#EngineeringLeadership
#DBAs know that keeping a #database running efficiently comes from understanding the first principals of how they use CPUs, memory, and other resources. Join this session to learn the details. Hope to see you there! sprou.tt/1brp8vKKeOj
Nikola Jokic lists his NBA Mount Rushmore ๐
๐ถ Bill Russell
๐ถMichael Jordan
๐ถWilt Chamberlain
๐ถ Stephen Curry
"I'd probably say Bill Russell, for his championship titles. Michael Jordan, because he changed basketball. Probably Wilt Chamberlain, for all his numbers and completely insane stats. And I'm going to put Steph Curry, because he changed basketball and he's more or less from my generation. I've played against him and he really changed the game, in his own way. Those are my four players."
(via Sport Bible)