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.
|