📖 READER VIEW (Read-Only, Public Access)
The application's rigid and complex database schema is hindering the integration of new features, making modifications difficult and time-consuming.
Relational (e.g., PostgreSQL, MySQL, SQL Server)
Occasionally (a few times a year)
Legacy design
Yes, already tried that
500 GB
La base de données pourrait être excessivement normalisée, entraînant de nombreuses jointures et des relations complexes difficiles à modifier. Alternativement, le modèle relationnel lui-même pourrait être mal conçu pour les besoins évolutifs des données.
Sans un système robuste de versionnement et de migration de schémas, les changements sont souvent appliqués de manière ad hoc, ce qui conduit à un schéma emmêlé et ingérable au fil du temps.
La technologie de base de données choisie pourrait ne pas être bien adaptée aux exigences actuelles ou futures de modélisation des données de l'application, surtout si les données sont très peu structurées ou en évolution rapide.
🤖 AI Analysis
"The user explicitly states that integrating new features is challenging due to the database schema. A planned refactoring of the schema directly addresses the root cause of the problem by simplifying relationships and improving flexibility, which is crucial for easier feature integration. The legacy design also points towards the need for a more fundamental cleanup."
🤖 AI Analysis
"Denormalization can help reduce join complexity, which might be a contributing factor to the difficulty in integrating features, especially if those features involve complex data retrieval. However, it's a strategic optimization rather than a direct solution to the overall schema complexity stemming from legacy design. It should be considered as part of a broader refactoring effort."
🤖 AI Analysis
"While the user is experiencing challenges with their current relational database, migrating to a new technology is a significant undertaking. It's a more drastic solution that might be considered if refactoring proves insufficient or if the current database technology is fundamentally limiting. The problem description doesn't yet indicate that the database *type* is the primary issue, but rather its current state."
🤖 AI Analysis
"Polyglot persistence is a more advanced strategy for handling diverse data needs. While it could potentially alleviate some integration challenges by offloading specific data types to more suitable databases, it's a complex architectural change. The current problem seems more focused on the complexity of the existing relational schema rather than a need for fundamentally different database types for all data."
🤖 AI Analysis
"The user mentioned they 'already tried that' regarding schema management/migration tools. While implementing robust tools is generally good practice, this solution is less relevant as a primary fix given the user's prior experience. It might be a supporting tool for a refactoring effort, but not the core solution to the complexity itself."
🤖 AI Analysis
"Establishing a schema change review process is a good governance practice for managing future changes. However, it doesn't address the existing complexity of the schema that is currently hindering feature integration. This solution is more about preventing future problems than solving the current one."