Making a bad problem worse
This can be kind of complex. However, there's no call for being crazy about it. Yet, before we get to the end of this saga, it will get crazy.
Your fulfillment (or "order-to-ship") process is rather complex. There's the order as placed and there's the actual products that got shipped. Your invoicing is also rather complex because you have to reconcile the order with the fulfillment and the final delivery.
Recently, I saw a piece of a "database" design for software used to support this kind of business. The design was so dysfunctional that there were heated arguments about how to proceed.
Note that the real business with the dysfunctional database deals in intellectual property, not beer. The fact that they deal in IP instead of tangible assets seems to make them easily confused. One thing I've heard -- but haven't seen -- is that they update the order during the fulfillment process. After all, the customer's order should match the invoice, right? Yes, but. In this business, the fulfillment will diverge from the order; it makes more sense to create a mapping from invoice to order than to rewrite the order.
Not the Crazy Part
The hellish thing that I saw was the many-to-many association between order and beer type. A many-to-many isn't bad. What they did, however, was really bad. But not crazy. Not yet.
It's a many-to-many table. Order has one or more Beer Types. A Beer Type can appear on any number of Orders. Could be simple.
In the world of atoms (tangible goods, not services) there's a pretty standard model where an order is a composite object with multiple line items. Each line item has a reference to a product. For this business, each line item would have a reference to a product type, instead of a specific product.
In a sensible software solution, there'd also be an invoice as a composite object; separate from the order. Only a customer can change an order. The invoice, however, would grow and change throughout the fulfillment process. The invoice, like the order, would have multiple line items. Each invoice line item would reference two things: the product actually delivered, and the order line item that this product fulfilled. This could include some "justification" or "rationale" showing how the fulfillment matches the order.
Because the real business didn't separate order and invoice -- and instead tried to massage the order to also be an invoice -- what they had was a table with flags and 10 (ten, yes ten) business rules that resolved whether or not this type of beer was or was not part of the order.
I'll summarize. The many-to-many table had two columns with flag values and ten business rules to interpret those flag values to determine what the was ordered and what was fulfilled. Two columns of flags. Ten rules. But that's not the crazy part.
A database that requires ten business rules and procedural processing to interpret the data is bad. It gets worse, however.
One of the ten business rules is a tie-breaker. The process that fulfilled orders was so badly broken that it could (and did) create multiple, conflicting invoice-to-type association rows. I was shocked: multiple, conflicting invoice-to-type association rows. Rule 10 was "in the event of a tie, there's 'bad data', pick a row and keep going."
There's "bad data"? Keep going? I would think this would be a show-stopper. Whomever wrote the application that created the bad data needs career guidance (guidance as in, "you're fired".)
It's Broken, But...
Clearly, any database that requires ten procedural business rules is not much of a database. A SQL query cannot be used to produce either order or invoice. To fetch an order or an invoice requires a procedure so complex that the organization cannot even figure out what programming language to use.
A procedure so complex that the organization cannot even figure out what programming language to use. Really.
The DBA's say it can be done as a stored procedure. And they have a worse plan, too. We'll get to that.
The programmers want to do this in C# because -- clearly -- the database is broken.
If you can't agree on the implementation, you've got big, big problems.
The Crazy Part
The pitch from one of the DBA's was to add yet more complexity. There are two flag columns and ten business rules to resolve nuances of order and fulfillment. This is a mistake which requires someone sit down and work out a fix.
Instead, the DBA pitched using Oracle's analytic functions to make the complex procedural processing look like "ordinary" database processing.
That's right. Take a database design so complex that it's dysfunctional and add complexity to it.
Call me crazy but anyone who uses Oracle analytic functions on this problem now has two problems. They've got a analytic layer that only one DBA understands. This wraps a broken many-t0-many table that (apparently) no one understands.
None of this reflects the actual business model very well, does it?
If the database does not (1) reflect the actual business model and (2) work in simple SQL, it's broken. Adding technology to a broken database makes it more complex but leaves it essentially broken.
Stop. Adding. Complexity.
(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)