Is that really "bad database design"? Sounds a lot more like "perfectly fine design for the original use case".
Re/Abusing a customer database based mass mailing tool to send non-customer mass mailings is a new use case, so requires changes either a) on the database side - or b) in the mass mailing tool (to use another database table that is not connected to the customer side of things). I would have preferred b) for many reasons.
Yes, but that is an unrelated mess (and another reason not to reuse anything of that db for non customer mailings).
The simplest fix for the "duplicate/misspelled addresses" indeed was to remove the "unique address" requirement and just let each customer have its own set of addresses that are only connected to that customer.
Letting an address be connected to multiple customers (many to many) sounds great in theory, but is a disaster waiting to happen in practice.
Also, is a couple actually one customer or two separate customers? What about the customer's "friend"'s address in the system?
Of course this is all from the outside, knowing nothing about anything on the inside - so there might have been good reasons for why it all was how it was.
Comments
Is that really "bad database design"? Sounds a lot more like "perfectly fine design for the original use case".
Re/Abusing a customer database based mass mailing tool to send non-customer mass mailings is a new use case, so requires changes either a) on the database side - or b) in the mass mailing tool (to use another database table that is not connected to the customer side of things). I would have preferred b) for many reasons.
Did you catch the part about duplicate/misspelled addresses? The design wasn't even fit for the original use case.
Yes, but that is an unrelated mess (and another reason not to reuse anything of that db for non customer mailings).
The simplest fix for the "duplicate/misspelled addresses" indeed was to remove the "unique address" requirement and just let each customer have its own set of addresses that are only connected to that customer.
Letting an address be connected to multiple customers (many to many) sounds great in theory, but is a disaster waiting to happen in practice.
Also, is a couple actually one customer or two separate customers? What about the customer's "friend"'s address in the system?
Of course this is all from the outside, knowing nothing about anything on the inside - so there might have been good reasons for why it all was how it was.