3 ms·
Updated? That's a design error right there. "Nope, can't give you the records of Jane Doe from 2005, you are in our system as Jane Smith. You had a different n
by Piskvorrr 8y ago
Updated? That's a design error right there.
"Nope, can't give you the records of Jane Doe from 2005, you are in our system as Jane Smith. You had a different name then? Doesn't compute!" In other words, the old name needs to be kept, the new one is not a fix from an erroneous state: it used to be correct then, the new one is correct now, and you still need to match on both.
Why? Because changes never propagate instantly, if they propagate at all: I still get mail addressed to my mother (who hasn't lived here for decades), addressed to her previous name (another decade on top of that), into my mailbox, even though no trace of any of those names remains. As far as the post office goes, "XY Street 123, box 45" is still the residence of Mrs Foo. (That's actually a counterexample, yeah)
- 0db532a0 8y agoInterested question: Why shouldn’t names be updated in-place?
- Piskvorrr 8y agoIf you do have a denormalized "this is a current name" column, sure, go ahead. But the example is right above you: you might need to match not just on a current name, but on historical names as well. People change their names a lot.
- 0db532a0 8y agoThat’s true, actually. I didn’t read the reply properly. It makes complete sense to ban updates if you want to have access to historical names.