I think you didn't read through to this part of my comment:
> I think the most important thing the author learned is that failing to add an index can cost this much money before you notice.
> Ideally the author and/or the vendor will also brainstorm ways to make these errors obvious before the high bill. Load testing with realistic data is one way (though people talk about load testing a lot more than they actually do it). Another would be watching for abrupt changes in the operations the billing is based on.
No I did, but since I disagree with your earlier point about how much existing knowledge they have it kind of by default means I disagree with what they took away from this incident.
It's also highly speculative so like I'm not going to go back and forth on it.
Needing a vendor to hand hold your likely highly paid dev seems like a bad fix to me.
Also not having an index isn't an error it can be a valid choice based on your situation and query load which is why people should know the situations when they're needed.
I think people should simply be better. A lot of people don't like hearing that though so usually I keep it to my private chats where people seem more willing to cop to that fact.
I know we disagree, I know you're going to continue disagreeing, I know I don't want to have the conversation.
> I know we disagree, I know you're going to continue disagreeing, I know I don't want to have the conversation.
Please consider not chiming in on the next article like this then. I think your attitude of (paraphrasing) "no good programmer would have made the costly mistake you shared, and articles about it aren't worthwhile" is super harmful to our industry. It's the polar opposite of the blameless postmortem approach I'm fond of.
This one in particular is not worthwhile on the front page of HN, that's my take. They're most definitely useful for beginners, or maybe people just learning about databases.
I'm not going to not post simply because you find it disagreeable, there are plenty of people here who seem to agree with me.
Blameless post mortems are great, for your team. I am not his team mate, and I don't really feel a kinship with every developer under the sun. And for what it's worth I don't blame this developer for anything. If anything I lament the institutions that failed them on the way to this point in time. To me this is a symptom of systemic rot.
I asked before making a mistake, I also asked to do some light market validation. Try to keep the ad hominems down. If you can't make an argument against the point and have to attack me as a person, it's just validation. Most of my contributions here are in my upvoted comments like my op, which clearly a good amount of people share.
Generally speaking I don't want to submit most things, largely and because like this post I find most thoughts people have to be garbage, including my own, most things and people simply aren't interesting or useful.
> I think the most important thing the author learned is that failing to add an index can cost this much money before you notice.
> Ideally the author and/or the vendor will also brainstorm ways to make these errors obvious before the high bill. Load testing with realistic data is one way (though people talk about load testing a lot more than they actually do it). Another would be watching for abrupt changes in the operations the billing is based on.