Voice Comparison
"Database-first debugging" — polished vs raw
Database-first debugging
A lesson from production firefighting
"Assuming that a breakage is caused by a code change is often true, but not always. If we had spent less time looking at the recent changes, and more time looking at the database itself, we would have found it much faster."
From a production debugging session. We were chasing a performance issue through git blame and commit diffs for hours. The actual problem was 12.8 million stale database records - damcologs where only 27k contained actual content.
After cleanup: 406,624 records. Down from 13,279,954. Integration server CPU usage dropped immediately. The "bug" wasn't in the code at all.
The pattern
When something breaks, the instinct is to look at what changed recently. git diff, recent commits, recent deploys. This is usually right. But when it's wrong, you burn hours.
Sometimes the problem has been there for months, slowly accumulating until it tips over. The database grew. The load changed. Something external shifted.
The fix: Before diving into code archaeology, spend 10 minutes looking at the actual data. Database size, record counts, query performance. Often the answer is sitting there, waiting.
Database-first debugging
When the problem isn't in the code
Hours. We spent hours on this.
Git blame. Commit diffs. "What changed recently?" The usual. Performance tanking on the integration server, so obviously someone pushed something bad. Right?
Wrong.
12.8 million records in damcologs. Only 27k had actual content. The rest? Ghosts. Accumulated over months while we weren't looking.
After cleanup: 406,624 records. CPU usage dropped immediately.
The "bug" wasn't in the code at all. We were debugging the wrong thing.
The instinct is always: what changed? Usually that's right. But when it's wrong, you burn hours chasing commits that didn't break anything.
Sometimes the problem has been there for months. Accumulating. Waiting.
Before the code archaeology: look at the data. Ten minutes. Database size, record counts, query stats. Often the answer is just sitting there.
Would've saved us a day.
What Changed
- Removed the upfront blockquote lesson — raw voice shows, doesn't tell. The lesson emerges from the story.
- Fragment punches — "Hours. We spent hours on this." / "Wrong." / "Ghosts."
- Removed "The pattern" / "The fix:" labels — raw voice doesn't label its structure. The --- separator does the work.
- Added self-questioning — "Right?" invites the reader into the mistake.
- Shorter paragraphs — staccato rhythm. Let lines breathe.
- Punchier closer — "Would've saved us a day." vs the explanatory original ending.
- War story, not lesson plan — you feel the frustration, then get the insight.
Patterns Applied
From the voice analysis:
- Fragment Punch: "Hours.", "Wrong.", "Ghosts."
- Self-Question: "Right?"
- Breathing Separator: --- instead of section headers
- Staccato → Reflection: Short punches, then longer explanation, then punch close
- Earnest Closer: "Would've saved us a day." — regret without melodrama