Timeline for Is this a ridiculous way to structure a DB schema, or am I completely missing something?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2017 at 7:31 | history | edited | CommunityBot | replaced http://programmers.stackexchange.com/ with https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/ | |
| Oct 5, 2011 at 18:41 | history | edited | psr | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 487 characters in body |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 17:44 | comment | added | psr | @BiAiB - you are correct, that is what I meant to say. | |
| Sep 30, 2011 at 12:19 | comment | added | BiAiB | @psr I think there's a typo: shouldn't "queries that assume there is only one user per department" be "queries that assume a user is in only one departement" ? | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:40 | history | edited | psr | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 931 characters in body |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:31 | comment | added | psr | As you can see by lots of the comments, there is a healthy skepticism about "there will only ever be one X per Y" comments. The consultant is covering himself from "how come there can only be one X per Y" complaints. Some of which will probably come up. But he won't be responsible for maintaining code that has many joins (not too bad, but harder) and that has to be correct against business rules that don't yet exist (bad) - imagine the question "why do users get ALL the permissions from each department, they should get the LOWEST of each permission" or some such. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:18 | comment | added | Jim | I think you put into words what my WTF was - the guy is using TONS of these intemediary tables, and it just seemed so stupid to me. Now that I've broken it down into a much smaller example for this question, I feel rather stupid for posting it since it doesn't seem that bad. | |
| Sep 29, 2011 at 17:13 | history | answered | psr | CC BY-SA 3.0 |