I’m a tech interested guy. I’ve touched SQL once or twice, but wasn’t able to really make sense of it. That combined with not having a practical use leaves SQL as largely a black box in my mind (though I am somewhat familiar with technical concepts in databasing).
With that, I keep seeing [pic related] as proof that Elon Musk doesn’t understand SQL.
Can someone give me a technical explanation for how one would come to that conclusion? I’d love if you could pass technical documentation for that.
He could also refer to the mere possibility of having duplicates which does not mean there are duplicates. And even then it could be by accident. Of course db design could prevent this. But I guess he is inflating the importance of this issue.
If there are timestamped records for things like name changes then you’d get “duped” SSNs
Billionaires are stealing our dollars, tax or otherwise.
It’s so basic that documentation is completely unnecessary.
“De-duping” could mean multiple things, depending on what you mean by “duplicate”.
It could mean that the entire row of some table is the same. But that has nothing to do with the kind of fraud he’s talking about. Two people with the same SSN but different names wouldn’t be duplicates by that definition, do “de-duping” wouldn’t remove it.
It can also mean that a certain value shows up more than once (eg just the SSN). But that’s something you often want in database systems. A transaction log of SSN contributions would likely have that SSN repeated hundreds of times. It has nothing to do with fraud, it’s just how you record that the same account has multiple contributions.
A database system as large as the SSA has needs to deal with all kinds of variations in data (misspellings, abbreviations, moves, siblings, common names, etc). Something as simplistic as “no dupes anywhere” would break immediately.
SSN is also not a valid unique key, there have been situations with multiple people issued the same SSN:
Yeah. And the fix for that has nothing to do with “de-duping” as a database operation either.
The main components would probably be:
- Decide on a new scheme (with more digits)
- Create a mapping from the old scheme to the new scheme. (that’s where existing duplicates would get removed)
- Let people use both during some transition period, after which the old one isn’t valid any more.
- Decide when you’re going to stop issuing old SSNs and only issue new ones to people born after some date.
There’s a lot of complication in each of those steps but none of them are particularly dependant on “de-duped” databases.
Just read the format of the us ssn in that wikipedia. That wasnt a smart format to use lol. Only supports 99*999 ( +/- 100k ) people per area code. No wonder numbers are reused.
In some countries its birthday+sequence number encoded with gender+checksum and that has been working since the 80’s.
Before that was a different number, but it wasnt future proof like the us ssn so we migrated away in the 80’s :')In my country the only way that someone has the same number is if someone was born on the same day (±1 century), in the same city and has the same name and family name. Is extremely difficult to have duplicates in that way (exception: immigrants, because the “city code” is the same for the whole foreign country, so it’s not impossible that there are two Ananya Gupta born on the same day in the whole India)
Oh ye, our system wouldnt fit india as its limited to 500 births a day ( sequence is 3, digits and depending if its even or uneven describes your gender ). Your system seems fine to me and beats the us system hands down haha
TL;DR de-deuplication in that form is used to refer a technique where you reference two different pieces of data in the file system, with one single piece of data on the drive, the intention being to optimize file storage size, and minimize fragmentation.
You can imagine this would be very useful when taking backups for instance, we call this a “Copy on Write” approach, since generally it works by copying the existing file to a second reference point, where you can then add an edit on top of the original file, while retaining 100% of the original file size, and both copies of the file (its more complicated than this obviously, but you get the idea)
now just to be clear, if you did implement this into a DB, which you could do fairly trivially, this would change nothing about the DB operates, it wouldn’t remove “duplicates” it would only coalesce duplicate data into one single tree to optimize disk usage. I have no clue what elon thinks it does.
The problem here, as a non programmer, is that i don’t understand why you would ever de-duplicate a database. Maybe there’s a reason to do it, but i genuinely cannot think of a single instance where you would want to delete one entry, and replace it with a reference to another, or what elon is implying here (remove “duplicate” entries, however that’s supposed to work)
Elon doesn’t know what “de-duplication” is, and i don’t know why you would ever want that in a DB, seems like a really good way to explode everything,
i genuinely cannot think of a single instance where you would want to delete one entry, and replace it with a reference to another
Well, there’s not always a benefit to keeping historical data. Sometimes you only want the most up-to-date information in a particular table or database, so you’d just update the row (replace). It depends on the use case of a given table.
what elon is implying here (remove “duplicate” entries, however that’s supposed to work)
Elon believes that each row in a table should be unique based on the SSN only, so a given SSN should appear only once with the person’s name and details on it. Yes, it’s an extremely dumb idea, but he’s a famously stupid person.
Well, there’s not always a benefit to keeping historical data. Sometimes you only want the most up-to-date information in a particular table or database, so you’d just update the row (replace). It depends on the use case of a given table.
in this case you would just overwrite the existing row, you wouldn’t use de-duplication because it would do the opposite of what you wanted in that case. Maybe even use historical backups or CoW to retain that kind of data.
Elon believes that each row in a table should be unique based on the SSN only, so a given SSN should appear only once with the person’s name and details on it. Yes, it’s an extremely dumb idea, but he’s a famously stupid person.
and naturally, he doesn’t know what the term “de-duplication” means. Definitionally, the actual identity of the person MUST be unique, otherwise you’re going to somehow return two rows, when you call one, which is functionally impossible given how a DB is designed.
in this case you would just overwrite the existing row, you wouldn’t use de-duplication because it would do the opposite of what you wanted in that case.
… That’s what I said, you’d just update the row, i.e. replace the existing data, i.e. overwrite what’s already there
Definitionally, the actual identity of the person MUST be unique, otherwise you’re going to somehow return two rows, when you call one, which is functionally impossible given how a DB is designed.
… I don’t think you understand how modern databases are designed
… That’s what I said, you’d just update the row, i.e. replace the existing data, i.e. overwrite what’s already there
u were talking about not keeping historical data, which is one of the proposed reasons you would have “duplicate” entries, i was just clarifying that.
… I don’t think you understand how modern databases are designed
it’s my understanding that when it comes to storing data that it shouldn’t be possible to have two independent stores of the exact same thing, in two separate places, you could have duplicate data entries, but that’s irrelevant to the discussion of de-duplication aside from data consolidation. Which i don’t imagine is an intended usecase for a DB. Considering that you literally already have one identical entry. Of course you could simply make it non identical, that goes without saying.
Also, we’re talking about the DB used for the social security database, not fucking tigerbeetle.
Ssn being unique isnt a dump idea, its a very smart idea, but due to the us ssn format its impossible to do. Hence to implement the idea you need to change the ssn format so it is unique before then.
Also, elons remark is stupid as is. Im sure the row has a unique id, even if its just a rowid column.
Having never seen the database schema myself, my read is that the SSN is used as a primary key in one table, and many other tables likely use that as a foreign key. He probably doesn’t understand that foreign keys are used as links and should not be de-duplicated, as that breaks the key relationship in a relational database. As others have mentioned, even in the main table there are probably reused or updated SSNs that would then be multiple rows that have timestamps and/or Boolean flags for current/expired.
Is this is true, then by this time we are all fucked. Like Monday someone checks their banking or retirement and it all gone. That’s gonna be a crazy day.
I hope they’re not using the actual SSN as the primary key. I hope its a big ass number that is otherwise unrelated.
It’s more than just SQL. Social Security Numbers can be re-used over time. It is not a unique identifier by itself.
i’ve heard conflicting reports on this, i have no idea to what degree this is true, but i would be cautious about making this statement unless you demonstrate it somehow.
As read on wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number ) the format only allows +/- 100k numbers per area code ( which is also limited to 999 codes? ), so over time you are forced to reuse some codes. In total the format allows 99m unique codes, and the us currently has 334mil people sooooo :')
On June 25, 2011, the Social Security Administration changed the SSN assignment process to “SSN randomization”,[36] which did the following:
The Social Security Administration does not reuse Social Security numbers. It has issued over 450 million since the start of the program, about 5.5 million per year. It says it has enough to last several generations without reuse and without changing the number of digits. https://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
evidently they must be doing something else on the backend for this to be working, assuming there are quite literally 100M numbers, which is going to be static due to math, obviously, but they clearly can’t be reassigning numbers to 3 people on average at any given time, without some sort of external mechanism.
There are approximately 420 million numbers available for assignment.
https://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html
that certainly doesnt seem like it would support several generations, possibly at our current birth rate i suppose.
DDG AI bullshit tells me that there are a billion codes. https://www.marketplace.org/2023/03/10/will-we-ever-run-out-of-social-security-numbers/ this article says it’s 1 billion
https://www.ssn-verify.com/how-many-ssns
this website also lists it as approximately 1 billion.
I think i see the change. They are mentioning the ssn is 9 numbers long, which is 1 longer than the 3-3-2 format wikipedia mentions. That does mean its around 999mil numbers, which ye allows for a few generations ( like, 1 or 2 lol )
He’s just a permanent petulant child.
To me I’m not really sure what his reply even means. I think it’s some attempt at a joke (because of course the government uses SQL), but I figure the joke can be broken down into two potential jokes that fail for different, embarrassing reasons:
Interpretation 1: The government is so advanced it doesn’t use SQL - This interpretation is unlikely given that Elon is trying to portray the government as in need of reform. But it would make more sense if coming from a NoSQL type who thinks SQL needs to be removed from everywhere. NoSQL Guy is someone many software devs are familiar with who takes the sometimes-good idea of avoiding SQL and takes it way too far. Elon being NoSQL Guy would be dumb, but not as dumb as the more likely interpretation #2.
Interpretation 2: The government is so backward it doesn’t use SQL - I think this is the more likely interpretation as it would be consistent with Elon’s ideology, but it really falls flat because SQL is far from being cutting-edge. There has kind of been a trend of moving away from SQL (with considerable controversy) over the last 10 years or so and it’s really surprising that Elon seems completely unaware of that.
My guess is that he thinks SQL is an app or implementation like MS-SQL. It would be pretty surprising if the government didn’t use SQL as in relational databases, but if it doesn’t it’s even more unlikely that he understands even the first part over whether having duplicate SS numbers is in any way unexpected or unreasonable. Most likely one of the junior devs somewhere along the lines misunderstood a query and said something uninformed and mocking, and he took that as a good dig to toss into a tweet.
Thanks for genuine response. Lol, most who interpret my question that way you did don’t seem interested in a good faith discussion. But ol’ boy is def tripping if he thinks SQL isn’t used in the government.
Big thing I’m intending to pry at is whether there would be a legitimate purpose to have duplicated SSNs in the database (thus showing the First Bro doesn’t understand how SQL works).
There can be duplicate SSNs due to name changes of an individual, that’s the easiest answer. In general, it’s common to just add a new record in cases where a person’s information changes so you can retain the old record(s) and thus have a history for a person. That’s how the SSA is able to figure out if a person changed their gender, they just look up that information using the same SSN and see if the gender in the new application is different from the old data.
JFC: married individuals, or divorced and name change back, would be totally fucked. Just on the very surface is his fuckery.
Hypothetically you could have a separate “previous names” table where you keep the previous names and on the main table you only keep the current name. There are a lot of ways to design a db to not unnecessarily duplicate SSNs, but without knowing the implementation it’s hard to say how wrong Musk is. But it’s obvious he doesn’t know what he’s talking about because we know that due to human error SSN-s are not unique and you can’t enforce uniqueness on SSN-s without completely fucking up the system. Complaining about it the way he did indicates that he doesn’t really understand why things are the way they are.
Another accusation Elon made was that payments are going to people missing SSNs.
A much simpler answer is that not all Americans actually have an SSN. The Amish for example have religious objections towards insurance, so they were allowed to opt out from social security and therefore don’t get an SSN.
It’s true that some Americans don’t have Social Security numbers, but those Americans can’t collect Social Security benefits unless/until they get one.
My bad, I thought it was about payments in general (including other programs) but it says social security database. Sorry.
139 comments and no one addresses his use of a slur.
it seems that nobody really cares about the word retard anymore, it’s quite funny how it went from super common language, to being less common, to people just saying it again now.
I’m curious how many people actually consider the word a slur, and how many people even care these days.
Because that’s really just to be expected at this point, and what his audience would want…
Better to focus on constantly poking at him for being dumb, which he and his fans hate, rather than give them what they want, ie being upset at their hateful language
It’s an insanely idiotic thing to say. Federal government IT is myriad, and done at a per agency level. Any relational database system, which the federal government uses plenty of, uses SQL in one way or another. Elon doesn’t know what he is talking about at all, and is being an ultimate idiot about this. Even in the context of mainframe projects thatif we are giving elong the benefit of doubt about referring to, most COBOL shoprbibknow have adapted to addressing internal data records using an SQL interface, although obviously in that legacy world it is insanely fractured and arcane.
Yeah, obviously ol’ boy is tripping if he thinks SQL isn’t used in the government.
Big thing I’m prying at is whether there would be a legitimate purpose to have duplicated SSNs in the database (thus showing the First Bro doesn’t understand how SQL works).
Another commentor pointed out a legitimate use case, but it’s not even worth thinking about that much. De-duplocated is usually a word you use in data science to talk aboutakong sure your dataset is “hygienic” and that you aren’t duplicating data points. A database is much different because it is less about representing data, and more about storing it in a way that allows you to perform transactions at scale - retrieval, storage, modification, etc. Relational databases are analyzed in terms of data cardinality which essentially describes tradeoffs in representation between speed of retrieval (duplications good) vs storage efficiency (duplications bad).
The issue is that Elon is so vague and so off the mark that it is very hard to believe that he even has the first clue about what he is a talking about. Even you are confused just by reading it. It is all a tactic to convince others that he is smarter than he is while doing extreme damage to the hardworking people that actually make this stuff possible. Have you noticed that the man has never come to a conclusion that wasn’t in his interests? This is not honest intellectualism, or discussion based on technical merit. It’s self serving propaganda.
Well, if someone changes their name you’d add a new record with the same SSN to hold their new name, that way it keeps the records consistent with the paperwork; old papers say their old name and reference the retired record, new papers use their new name and reference the new record.
You can use the SSN as the key to find all records associated with a person, it doesn’t have to be a single row per SSN, in fact that would make the data harder to manage and less accurate.
E.g. if someone changes their last name after getting married, it could be useful to be able to have their current and former name in the database for reference.
Because of course the government uses SQL. It’s as stupid as saying the government doesn’t use electricity or something equally stupid. The government is myriad agencies running myriad programs on myriad hardware with myriad people. My damned computers at home are using at least 2-3 SQL databases for some of the programs I run.
SQL is damn near everywhere where data sets are found.
Yeah, obviously ol’ boy is tripping if he thinks SQL isn’t used in the government.
Big thing I’m prying at is whether there would be a legitimate purpose to have duplicated SSNs in the database (thus showing the First Bro doesn’t understand how SQL works).
SSNs being duplicated would be entirely expected depending upon the table’s purpose. There are many forms of normalization in database tables.
I mean just think about this a little bit, if the purpose is transactions or something and each row has a SSN reference in it for some reason, you’d have a duplicate SSN per transaction row.
A tiny bit of learning SQL and you could easily see transactional totals grouped by SSN (using, get this, a group by clause). This shit is all 100% normal depending upon the normalization level of the schema. There are even – almost obviously – tradeoffs between fully normalizing data and being able to access it quickly. If I centralize the identities together and then always only put the reference id in a transactional table, every query that needs that information has to go join to it and the table can quickly become a dependency knot.
There was a “member” table for instance in an IBM WebSphere schema that used to cause all kinds of problems, because every single record was technically a “member” so everything in the whole system had to join to it to do anything useful.
had to join to it
I don’t think I get what this means. As you describe it, that reference id sounds comparable to a pointer, and so there should be a quick look up when you need to de-reference it, but that hardly seems like a “dependency knot”?
I feel like this is showing my own ignorance on the back end if databasing. Can you point me to references that explain this better?
I’m talking about a SQL join. It’s essentially combining two tables into one set of query results and there are a number of different ways to do it.
https://www.w3schools.com/sql/sql_join.asp
Some joins are fast and some can be slow. It depends on a variety of different factors. But making every query require multiple joins to produce anything of use is usually pretty disastrous in real-life scenarios. That’s why one of the basics of schema design is that you usually normalize to what’s called third normal form for transactional tables, but reporting schemas are often even less normalized because that allows you to quickly put together reporting queries that don’t immediately run the database into the ground.
DB normalization and normal forms are practically a known science, but practitioners (and sometimes DBAs) often have no clue that this stuff is relatively settled and sometimes even use a completely wrong normal form for what they are doing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
In most software (setting aside well-written open source), the schema was put together by someone who didn’t even understand what normal form they were targeting or why they would target it. So the schema for one application will often be at varying forms of normalization, and schemas across different applications almost necessarily will have different normal forms within them even if they’re properly designed.
Oh, well another user pointed out that SSN’s are not unique, I think they are recycled after death or something. In any case, I do know that when the SSN system was first created it was created by people who said this is NOT MEANT to be treated as unique identifiers for our populace, and if it were it would be more comprehensive than an unsecure string of numbers that anyone can get their hands on. But lo and behold, we never created a proper solution and we ended up using SSN’s for identity purposes. Poop.
I’m pretty sure there is a federal statute that says ONLY the SSA may collect or use SSNs, as to federal agencies. I argued it once when a federal agency court tried to tell me that it couldn’t process part of my client’s case without it. I didn’t care but my client was crotchety and would only even give me the last four.
Edit. It’s a regulation:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/802.23
An agency cannot require disclosure of an SSN for any right or benefit if a specific federal statute requires it or the agency required the disclosure prior to 1975.
In my case the agency got back to me with some federal statute that didn’t say what they said it said, and eventually they had to admit they were wrong.
It’s entirely possible that the database is pre SQL.
Aha Airforce one likely uses SQL
Because a simple query would have shown that SSN was a compound key with another column (birth date, I think), and not the identifier he thinks it is.
Why would one person, one SSN ever have two different birth dates? That sounds like an issue all onto itself.
I think what he means is that the unique identifier for a database record is a composite of two fields: SSN + birth date. That doesn’t mean that SSN to birth date is a one-to-many relation.
But they are implying SSN to SSN+Birthdate is a one-to-many relationship. Since SSN to SSN should be one-to-one, you can conclude the SSN to Birthdate is one-to-many, right?
No, who said there was a relationship?
A compound key is a composite key where one or both sides can be foreign keys to other tables themselves; it’s a safe assumption this is probably true in a large data set like social security. A composite key is a candidate key (a uniquely identified key) made up of more than one column.
This basically means that there is a finite number of available SSNs because they’re only 10 digits long and someone intends to recycle SSNs after the current user of one dies. Linking it to birthday is “unique enough” as to never recur.
I think I was getting some wires crossed and/or misunderstood what geoff (parent commentor to my last comment) was saying, so my comment may be misdirected some.
But according to The Social Security FAQ page, SSNs are not recycled, so that data (especially when compounded and hashed with other data) should be able to establish a one-to-one relationship between each primary key and an SSN, thusly having SSNs appear associated with multiple primary keys is a concern.
Other comments have pointed to other explanations for why SSNs could appear to occur multiple times, but those amount to “it appeared in a different field associated with the same primary key”. I think thats the most likely explanation of things.
Note that it being only part of a key is a technology choice that does not require the reality map to it. It may seem like overkill, but someone may not trust the political process to preserve that promise and so they add the birthdate, just in case something goes sideway in the future. Lots of technical choices are made anticipating likely changes and problems and designing things to be extra robust in the face of those
Yeah this strikes me as safeguarding against a possible bad decision.
A weak example would be my grandma. She was born before social security and was told as a kid she was born in 1938. Because I guess in the olden days, you just didn’t need to pass your birth certificate around for anything, it wasn’t until she went to get married at ~age 25 that her birth certificate actually said she was born in 1940 (I forget the actual years, but I remember it was a two year and two day gap between dates).
Its a weak example that should apply to only a microscopic portion of the population, but I could see her having some weird records in the databases as a result.
Because SQL is everywhere. If Musk knew what it was, he would know that the government absolutely does use it.
This explanation makes no sense in the context of OP’s question, given the order of comments…
Yeah, a better explanation is that Deduplicating Databases are an absolutely terrible idea for every use case, as it means deleting history from the database.
