Poor Database Design Realities One of the interesting things that I see at Redgate Software is how idealistic our developers and engineers can be. They often build our database DevOps products with the idea that customers will use well-designed databases. The systems will have primary keys, foreign keys, defaults, constraints, indexes, and more. Developers will use coding standards, and naming conventions, and will understand what data is stored in tables. Not in every case, but often. After all, that's how we build software, at Redgate as teams, sharing information, publishing documentation for others, and following best practices. It's cute and endearing, and unfortunately, not often true. In most cases, I find databases built by developers, accidental DBAs, or even experienced DBAs to be full of inconsistencies, lacking constraints and keys, and even duplicating some indexes and forgetting others. I often joke during one of my presentations that the main thing people should learn is to add primary keys to their tables. However, I'm not really joking. During a recent design session on our masking technologies, there was a discussion on masking data in tables without PKs, which is a challenge. We're working on it, and also on being able to mask PKs themselves, as some people use the PII data as a PK. This could be a tax ID of some sort, but could also be an email address. When one of our account executives (Rob Boswell) heard that we were enhancing our capabilities with regards to PKs, he joked that we will soon be "primary key agnostic." It was a great line, and in one sense it's true. In another, it's sad that we need to design tooling around such poor practices. The reality of the world is there is a lot of bad design, bad architecture, and bad code out there. I applaud those who work to improve things in their environment, am saddened by those who don't (either improve code or their skills), and frustrated by management not supporting efforts to be better. At the very least they should support efforts to teach your staff to code things right the first time, which helps improve future code. The next best thing is to refactor and improve older code, which can help you spend less in the cloud, or run longer with the resources you have on-premises. The reality is the reality we are in, but that doesn't always need to be our future reality. We can change the future, each of us, by learning to write better code and improve how we approach our work tomorrow. Steve Jones - SSC Editor Join the debate, and respond to today's editorial on the forums |
