Re: Testing relational databases

Phlip wrote:
> AndrewMcDonagh wrote:
>

>> JXStern wrote:

>>> I don't get it, why is the book title "Refactoring Databases" if it's
>>> mostly about testing?

eh? JXStern made that quote not me...

besides, we both know the answer and agree on it.

>

>> Unfortunately, the majority of uses of RDBMs is to only persist 
>> mission-critical data.  The vast majority of development done with dbms 
>> that I've come across (from all sizes of company - startups - medium - 
>> large multinational corps) have all done the same.
>>
>> Lots of tables, several referential constraints, a fair few uniqueness 
>> constraints, and db links and a sprinkling of joins.
>>
>> As for business logic that could be modeled using the RM, its tended to be 
>> either in the 'application' code base (C++, Java, etc) or as stored 
>> procedures.
>>
>> So, whilst Scott may have made a better impression with the guys over in 
>> c.d.t he can certainly help the rest of the RDBM users....  and lets face 
>> it - there's more of them.

This one is mine.

I'm merely trying to point out that most people using/designing databases that use RDBMs, tend not to be the 'great and the good' from c.d.t. And so, whilst the c.d.t guys may consider Scott's approaches unfavorable, I'd say they can only help the majority of people.

>
> I thought the book was going to be about making sure you can refactor a
> database while maintaining an upgrade path from the last design to the next
> one, so your customers don't need to data-enter all their data again, once
> per new version.
>
> Put another way, the decision to refactor the database should be made
> at-whim, without regard to any up-front design. Otherwise the data design
> will be timid, like you said, or will be crufty.
>

I'm not actually talking about his book or this testing essay. Received on Mon Jul 10 2006 - 00:40:31 CEST