What needs improvement with erwin Data Modeler by Quest?

The solution's model mark could be better because it crashes sometimes.

We can only get licenses through partners. We cannot purchase directly from Quest. The partners end up charging a big margin on top of the actual price even though they are not providing any service. It was a letdown.

I would like the solution to be less rigid in terms of its theory. It supports the theory very well, but it's too rigid. It's focused on database design and theoretic database design. I'd like it to be able to do better extractions.

erwin is not as robust as a data warehousing project I've been on in the past. Likewise, the solution is a little pricey.

So far, we have used it in either a workroom version or a standalone version. It does not have a cloud application. We have licenses for Mac Linux since a lot of our people have Mac laptops, so erwin should work on their cloud application.

The reverse engineering in Oracle Databases needs improvement, as there are issues.

They should merge all those products because apart from the Mark Server, they have the Web Portal, which requires a separate installation and license. And it's not easy to maintain, but very easy to use. So you need additional resources such as memory, unlike if they merge those Web Portal and Mark Server, which would be a great solution. I think they should be more open to or ready to be agnostic to any databases, such as MongoDB. Any database available in the market should be ready in their drivers because I don't think they can be ready. So all the popular databases like Oracle, MySQL, Microsoft, and SQL Server, but I haven't seen any connector in Cosmos DB SQL, so it should be in the big data or cloud solution.

Although Quest Software has made tremendous strides in recent years, they need to evolve more in the big data arena; erwin Data Modeler could use a little more work when it comes to big database designs.

There is a lack of local support in the China region. The solution needs to be available in the Chinese language.

I think the interface sometimes looks old-fashioned when compared to other solutions, so maybe that can be improved. Also, I would like the solution to be more user-friendly to deploy.

A sorely needed enhancement to the erwin DM API is the ability to CLOSE a session. We use the API to automate tasks and every session has to be manually closed either in the Mart Admin console or the individual erwin on the person's desktop.  

When I need to stretch an entity in order to add new relationships the diagrammer should not move the existing relationship lines and put elbows in them.

There are too many features. People find it extremely difficult to navigate. It's a great product, but there are too many features and no one knows exactly where things are. For example, the documentation is not always straightforward, which is why I use another competitor's product, which is simpler and easier to use. It has more features than the product I previously used. This is a very complex product. They have a lot of features, and that may be the reason why I'm not familiar with them and has made it more complicated for me. In comparison to other products I've used, such as ER studio, which is a competitor to erwin. It is simple and easy to code as well as other functions. Even the coding has become much simpler. I can see that this is a little more complicated. I'm not certain. Right now, I can explicitly state that no features are required because I still need to explore some areas. Maybe the reporting area will be interesting if it is more dynamic.

There are some bugs here and there. The default code that comes with the customizable packages is a bit buggy on some platforms such as PostgreSQL. erwin has its own language in the backend, and the packages that come for PostgreSQL are a bit buggy. They should fix them. It would be nice to have it on the Linux platform, not just Windows. If they can support Linux, there would be a huge market for it. Currently, we can import only 80% of features from other platforms. We would like to be able to get the remaining features. These import tools or plugins are not from erwin. They are from different companies. Ideally, erwin should take them over and make some of those better.

I would like to have more data sources from other, different vendors. In recent years, the vendor has reduced the number of data sources, and I would like to have more data sources for every brand. For example, with Oracle, I would like to have compatibility for many versions, including old ones, not just the most recent. The technical support could be better. They could give faster solutions.

I still use Visio for conceptual modeling, and that's mainly because it is easier to change things, and you can relax some of the rules. DM's eventual target is a database, which means you actually have to dot all the Is and cross all the Ts, but in a conceptual model, you don't often know what you're working with. So, that's probably a constraint with erwin. They have made it a lot easier, and they've done a lot, but there is probably still room for improvement in terms of the ease of presentation back to the business. I'm comparing it with something like Visio where you can change colors on a box, change the text color and that sort of stuff, and change the lines. Such things are a whole lot easier in Visio, but once you get a theme organized in erwin, you can apply that theme to all of the objects. So, it becomes easier, but you do have to set up that theme. I think they've got three to four initial themes. There is a default theme, and then there are two or three others that you can pick from. So, having more color themes would help. In Visio, you have a series of themes where someone who knows about color has actually matched the colors to each other. So, if you use the colors in the theme, they will complement each other. So, erwin should provide a couple more themes. They could perhaps think of having an entry-level product that is priced a bit lower. For extra features, the users can pay more.

I would like to see the ability to support more NoSQL platforms more quickly. In addition, enhancing the graphics to render more quickly would be beneficial for any user.

We are planning to move, in 2021, into their server version, where multiple data modelers can work at the same time and share their models. It has become a pain point to merge the models from individual desktops and get them into a single data model, when multiple data modelers are working on a particular project. It becomes a nightmare for the senior data modeler to bring them together, especially when it comes to recreating them when you want to merge them. That's difficult. So we are looking at the version that will be a server-based model, where the data modelers can bring the data out, they can share, and they can merge their data models with existing data model on the server. The version we're not using now—the server version—would definitely help us with the pain point when it comes to merging the models. When you have the desktop version, merging the models, two into one, requires more time. But when we go over to the server, the data models can automatically pull and push. We will have to see what the scalability is like in that version. Apart from that, the solution seems to be fine.

When you do a data model, you can detect the table. However, sometimes I would find it quicker to just do a screenshot of the tables in the data model, put it in a Word document, and send it to the software designers and business users to let them see that this is how I organized the data. We could also share the information on team calls, then everybody could see it. That was quicker than trying to run reports out of erwin, because sometimes we got mixed results which took us more time than what they were worth. If you're just going in and making changes to a handful of tables, I didn't find the reporting capabilities that flexible or easy to use. The report generation has room for improvement. I think it was version 8 where you had to use Crystal Reports, and it was so painful that the company I was with just stayed on version 7 until version 9 came out and they restored the data browser. That's better than it was, but it's still a little cumbersome. For example, you run it in erwin, then export it out to Excel, and then you have to do a lot of cosmetic modification. If you discover that you missed a column, then you would have to rerun the whole thing. Sometimes what you would do is just go ahead and fix it in the report, then you have to remember to go back and fix it in the model. Therefore, I think the report generation still could use some work. I don't see that it helped me that much in identifying data sources. Instead, I would have to look at something like an XML file, then organize and design it myself.

I am not so happy with its speed. Sometimes, it can have problems with connections. erwin's automation of reusable design rules and standards is good, but it could be better.

The Bulk Editor needs improvement. If you had something that was a local model to your local machine, you could connect to the API, then it would write directly into the repository. However, when you have something that is on the centralized server, that functionality did not work. Then, you had to export out to a CSV and upload up to the repository. It would have been nice to be able to do the direct API without having that whole download and upload thing. Maybe I didn't figure it out, but I'm pretty sure that didn't work when it was a model that sat on a centralized repository.

I'd really like to see the PDF function become available. It would make my life much easier than what it is at the moment because whenever I need to collaborate with people that do not have erwin, I have to go through the wonkiness of going to Word and then save it from Word into PDF. There's a lot of differences between erwin 4.4 and 2020. It's a learning curve for me. It could be easier to use, but it's not a Windows/Microsoft type of application. It's close to it but it's also not. Once I've used it enough and learned it, then I'll know where all the pieces are.

The navigation is a little bit of a challenge. It's painful. For example, if you've got a view open and you want to try to move from side to side, the standard today is being able to drag and drop left and right. You can't really do that in the model. Moving around the model is painful because it doesn't follow the Windows model today. Otherwise, it's got everything I need and it's not hard to use for me.

I love the product. I love the ability to get into the code, make it automated, and make it do what I want. I would like to see them put some kind of governance over the ability to make changes to the mart tables with the API, so that instead of just using the modeler's rights to a table -- it has a separate set of rights for API access. That would give us the ability to put governance around API applications. Right now a person with erwin and Excel/VBA has the ability to make changes to models with the API if they also have rights to make changes to the model from erwin. It's a risk. We have a really good relationship with erwin and whenever we come across something and we contact the product developers and the contacts that we have, they immediately put fixes in, or they roll it into the next product. They're very responsive. I really don't have any complaints. It's a wonderful product and a great company.

I would like to see the reporting capabilities be more dynamic and more inclusive of information. The API is very sparsely understood by people across the user community. I would also like to see a greater amount of integration with the erwin Data Intelligence Suite and the erwin Web Portal for the diagram delivery. That would be beneficial to all.

I find the UI very clunky and very difficult to use. The whole workflow of adding columns to a table could be so much easier. I get frustrated using it. Resizing dialog boxes, changing fonts, printing, scrolling around in the UI, etc is very clunky. I've tried other tools. I've tried to get off of Erwin a few times. I always come back to it because every other tool has its own set of problems, and it seems like if I have to pick my poison, I stay with Erwin. But so many things that are clunky with it. My biggest frustrations with the product is forward engineering and keeping things in sync. A lot of times I need to change a column definition and all I want to do forward engineer it over to the database, it used to be so easy to do that, way back in the early days with Erwin before CA bought it, and now it's almost impossible. It's very frustrating to do. I've spoken to Erwin about this in the past, and I can understand why they're doing some of the things they're doing, but I'm more of a casual user than a power user, and for me, it's so clunky. It's so much easier using Embarcadero to forward engineer changes to a database than it is using Erwin. This product has been on the market for years and I'm amazed at some of the quirky things that I still have to deal with in this product. I wish rather than adding new features, Erwin would fix some of these usability issues.

We are not using erwin's ability to compare and synchronize data sources with data models in terms of accuracy and speed for keeping them in sync to the fullest extent. Part of it is related to the sources of the data and databases that we are now working with and the ability of erwin to interface with those database platforms. There are some issues right now. Historically, erwin worked relatively well with major relational databases, like Oracle, SQL Server, Informix, and Sybase. Now, we are migrating our platforms to the big data platforms: Hadoop, Hive, and HBase. It is only the more recent versions of erwin that have the ability to interface successfully with the big data platforms. One of the issues that we have right now is that we haven't been able to upgrade the version that we currently have of erwin, which doesn't do a very good job of interfacing with our Hive and Hadoop environments. I believe the 2020 version is more successful, but I haven't been able to test that. Much of what I do is documenting what we have. I am trying to document our primary data sources and databases in erwin so we have a common platform where we can visually discuss and make changes to the database. In the past couple of years, erwin has kind of supported importing or reverse engineering data models from Hive into erwin, but not necessarily exporting data models or forward generating the erwin-documented data models into Hive or Hadoop (based on my experience). I think the newest versions are better adapted to do that. It is an area of concern and a bit of frustration on my part at this time. I wish I had the latest version of erwin, either the 2020 R1 or R2 version, to see if I could be more successful in importing and exporting data models between erwin and Hive. erwin generally fails to successfully reverse engineer our Oracle Databases into erwin data models. The way that they are engineered on our side, the syntax is correct from an Oracle perspective, but it seems to be very difficult for erwin to interpret. What I end up doing is using Oracle Data Modeler to reverse engineer into the Oracle data model, then forward engineer the DDL into an Oracle syntax, and importing that DDL into erwin in order to successfully bring in most of the information from our physical data models. That is a bit of a challenge. There are other characteristics of erwin, as far as interfacing directly with the databases, that we don't do. Historically, while erwin has existed, the problem is the people that I work with and who have done most of the data management and database creation are engineers. Very few of them have any understanding of data modeling tools and don't work conceptually from that perspective. They know how to write DDL syntax for whether it's SQL Server, Oracle, or Sybase, but they don't have much experience using a data modeling tool like erwin. They don't trust erwin nor would they trust any of its competitors. I trust erwin a lot more than our engineers do. The most that they trust the solution to do is to document and be able to see characteristics of the database, which are useful in terms of discussing the database from a conceptual perspective and with clients, rather than directly engineering the database via erwin. erwin is more of a tool to document what exists, what potentially will exist, and create code that engineers can then harvest and manage/manipulate to their satisfaction. They can then use it to make changes directly to our databases. Currently, when the primary focus is on Hive databases or Hadoop environment, where there is no direct engineering at this point between erwin and those databases, any direct or indirect engineering at the moment is still with our Oracle Database.

Complete Compare is not user-friendly. For example, the save known changes as snapshot does not work as expected. We are unable to find the exported files in our workstations at times. Complete Compare is set up only to compare properties that are of interest to us, but some of the differences cannot be brought over from one version of the model to another. This is despite the fact that we are clicking to bring objects from one place to another. Therefore, it's hard to tell at times if Complete Compare is working as intended without having to manually go into the details and check everything. If it could be redesigned to a degree where it is easier to use when we bring things over from one site to another and be sure that it's been done correctly, that would be nice to have. We would probably use the tool more often if the Complete Compare were easier to use. The client performance could be improved. Currently, in some cases, when we delete entities it causes the program to crash. Similarly, for Mart's performance, we need to reindex the database indexes periodically. Otherwise browsing through the Mart, trying to open up or save a data model takes unusually long. There are several bugs we discovered. If those were fixed, that would be a nice improvement. We encounter model corruption over time, and it is one of those things that happens. There is a fix that we run to repair this corruption by saving the model as an XML file or to the Complete Compare tool. If this process could somehow be automated, having erwin detect when a model is corrupted and do this process on its own, that would be helpful. There are several Mart features that could be added. E.g., a way to automatically remove inactive sessions older than a specified date. This way we can focus on seeing which users have been utilizing our central repository recently, as opposed to seeing all of what happened since five years ago. This would be less of a problem if the mart administrator did not have trouble displaying all of the sessions. On the client side, there are some features that would come in handy for us, e.g., Google Cloud Platform support or support for some of the other cloud databases. If we had a better way to connect and reverse engineer the databases into data models, that would help us. Alter scripts can be troublesome to work with at times. If they can be set up to work better, that would help. On the Forward Engineering side of things, by default, the alter syntax is not enabled when creating alter scripts. We strongly believe this is something that should be enabled by default. On the Naming Standards (NSM) side of things, there is a way in erwin to translate logical names into physical names based on our business dictionary that we created. However, it would be nice if we could have more than one NSM entry with the same logical element name based on importance or usage. Also, if erwin could bring in the definitions as part of the NSM and into a model, then we could use those definitions on entities and attributes. That would be beneficial.

The modeling product itself is far and above anything else that I've seen on the market. There are certain inconsistencies when it comes to keeping up with other platforms' databases in the reverse-engineering process. It should also support more database platforms. There should also be improvements to capture erwin models in third-party products, for example, data catalogs and things of that nature, where the vendors have to be more aware of the different releases of product and what they support during that type of interaction. Instead of being three or four releases behind from one product to another, the products should become more aligned with each other. So if you're using an Erwin model in a data catalog, you should be able to scan that model based on the level of the Erwin model. If the old model is a certain release, the capture of that should be at the same release.

I would like to see improved reporting and, potentially, dashboards built on top of that. Right now, it's a little manual. More automated reporting and dashboard views would help because currently you have to push things out to a spreadsheet, or to HTML, and there aren't many other options that I know of. I would like to be able to produce graphs and additional things right in the tool, instead of having to export the data somewhere else. And that should work in an intuitive way which doesn't require so much of my time or my exporting things to a spreadsheet to make the reporting work.

Some Source official systems give us DDLs to work with and they have contents not required to be part of the DDL before we reverse engineer in the erwin DM. Therefore, we manually make changes to those scripts and edit them, then reverse-engineer within the tool. So, it does take some time to edit these DDL scripts generated by the source operational systems. What I would suggest: It would be helpful if there were a place within the erwin tool to import the file and automatically eliminate all the unnecessary lines of code, and just have the clean code built-in to generate the table/data model.

One of the things I've been talking to the erwin team about through the years is that every data model should have the ability to be multi-language. So along with the fact that I can change, for example, the graphic of the model to look at just the definitions in boxes, or just the key structures in the boxes, I'd love to be able to change the language. When I was working at Honda, it became very difficult to work with the Japanese teams using just one model. You can have two models, one in English and one in Japanese, but that means you have to keep the updates back and forth, and that always increases the risk of something not being updated. The world is getting to be a very small place, and being able to have one file that has all of that metadata in whatever form you need to read it, is the best way to manage that data. That would be a big change for them and it would be a big change to the Mart structure. It would be a one-to-many on the logical side of the business names, but it would also a one-to-many on the definition side of the tables and the columns and everything else, where you can have notes. I know that it's a big change I'm asking for, and they've had to put it off a little bit, but their business glossary tool now kind of looks at it that way. I'm hoping that the erwin model itself will be able to allow for that in the future.

I would like to see more support for working with the big-data world. There are so many new databases evolving and it's very hard for them to keep up with all of the new technologies. It would be good if they were able to dynamically support big-data platforms, other than Hive and Teradata. There's a new release coming out this year and they're adding two more platforms in that next release. So they are striving to keep up with technology, but technology is just evolving too rapidly. There are just too many options.