New DB diagram of 7.0

[Thristam]

OK. This is a rough draft of the DB psudo-schema for 7.0 to give myself and others an idea of what the DB looks like and to kinna give some grouping.


some info on this:

- There are no relationships in this db. I know, i know, I used relationships. But there more to give you a idea where the pointers actually connect then anything. Take the relationships as "references" not actual relationships.

- There is some work to be done on this. Ill be adding more pointers as the days go on. I just wanted to throw it out for now so everyone can look at this and get an idea how everything in 7.0 is put together.

- If you see errors, post em, ill be happy to fix them as I go.

- There are some tables that got sucked into my diagram that im not sure if they should actually be there or not. If you see them, holler and ill remove them.

Here is the Diagram (http://www.thristam.com/database/db_7_0.png)

Now im going to state some personal opinions:

The DB is in desperate need of some TLC. Constraints need to be added. indices are worthless right now with the db structure.The DB is filled with a ton of duplicate data. Mysql 5 cant come fast enough.

Im thinking about building out another DB schema that would follow the basic table structure but would be somthing light and compact and then post it here for review. This sound like a good idea?

[Sarepean]

I noticed some of the problems you pointed out recently, as well. The problem is that a new database schema does no real good without PEQ support since they'd have to do modifications to the code to support it. Or this can be a user done thing. At any rate, I'll admit that the database isn't as lightweight as it could be.

Also, in all reality, your database diagram is correct, but you forgot to mark one-to-ones, one-to-manys, and many-to-manys. The biggest problem is never one-to-anythings, it's many-to-manys and those would be the things we'd want to resolve.

I suppose we'd also want to remove duplicate data...

I guess my biggest issue here is more that, in the end, just as much, if not more, information is still being loaded into memory which means that a database schema change really doesn't help anyone but the people trying to modify information within the database. The people doing that can usually figure things out and shouldn't need such a change...

Tough call, but I'd say no need on the new database schema.

[Thristam]

technically, the diagram shows all referances via the color of said references:

White to black: one to many

White to white: one to one

Black to black: many to many

I havent seen any many to many references, if you do, please, post them out for me to change.

There are some one to ones, but not tons. And alot of one to manys. Again, if you see somthing that needs to be addresed, please, be my guest.

Any changes that you think are relevant to this db diagram ill be happy to make if needed.

[mattmeck]

wow thats a lot of work.

[GeorgeS]

Good job. Saved a copy for my records

GeorgeS

[Kayot]

What program did you use to make that ^-^ all I use is visio and this looks better.

[John Adams]

Yeah, I'd like to know, too. SQL database diagrams are fun, but not as clean as this looks. :)

[fathernitwit]

its dbdesigner

[John Adams]

Thank you FNW. Why didn't I think of that? :)