Issue 3230: How do we deal with these double entries for the same person in light of search routine?
- Object
- Kathy Jorgensen (Person)
- Submitter
- Viktor Lehmann (tone2tone)
- Assigned to
- Anselm Lingnau
- Priority
- Normal
- Disposition
- Being handled
- Description
-
This person, Kathy Jorgensen (#11937), is the same as Kathy Wendell (#1283). Entry 1283 is set to “current name: Kathy Jorgensen”. Yet, we have two entries for the same person. Is that meant to be? On the other hand, a search for “Kathy Jorgensen” does NOT display entry 1283 where the current name is given in addition to the birthname. Deleting 11937 would therefore prohibit to find “Kathy Jorgensen” on our database.
How did we deal with that in the past?
Previous Actions
- Date Aug. 21, 2023, 10:37 p.m.
- User Viktor Lehmann (tone2tone)
New issue submitted
- Date Aug. 21, 2023, 11:16 p.m.
- User Anselm Lingnau (anselm)
Assigned changed to “anselm” (previously “None”)
Disposition changed to “Being handled” (previously “New”)
The way the database deals with people’s names is probably one of the less well-thought-out aspects of the SCDDB database schema (I think Alan P must have had an off day when he worked on the person table).
Sound database design dictates that there should be one database entry per person (not several). This suggests that we should separate people’s names from the rest of the information about a person, because the same person can have several names during the course of their life (marriage, divorce, nicknames, etc.). See here for a somewhat more in-depth discussion of the topic. It is pretty clear what needs to be done – I’ve just been putting this off for the longest time because it is a huge change and will probably take some time to implement. (If you look at the Gitlab issue, note the subtasks which outline a method of tackling this in the code).
In any case, it looks as if I should tackle this sooner rather than later, just to rip the band-aid off. In the meantime it’s probably not worth tying ourselves in knots with the old system. If anyone has any comments, suggestions, ideas for further improvement, etc., let me know.