![]() My experience is that they are helpful, though they can sometimes be a little overrated. ![]() The databases I deal with will typically be highly normalized with table counts from around 300 on the low end and just over 1000 on the higher end. Over the course of my career I've been pretty database centric in the work that I do. Again, just curious if other folks find DB diagrams actually useful. I also always make use of Postgres COMMENTs on tables and columns, which will then display in DataGrip.ĭon't mean to denigrate the team at all, and in fact another comment mentioned the same team did dbdocs.io, and a quick look at that site makes me think the "Table Structure" pane is very similar to what I've said I like above. It's very easy to see which columns are foreign keys so I can follow relationships to other tables if I want to, but it's not one giant, cluttered mass. Then, just a tree view of all the tables in a list, with their columns and indices underneath, basically the Database pane you get in DataGrip. Gives me a good "grounding" to start my investigation to understand the conceptual model.Ģ. Just a simple, high-level textual description of the most important tables. The problem is that when you get an even mildly complicated schema, things quickly become a morass of tons of intersecting relationship lines, and I just end up spending all my time trying to see how things are actually connected. I'm generally a very "visual" person, but I've never found DB diagrams to be helpful for me. Random, but honest, question: Do other folks find DB diagrams to actually be useful?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |