Aldo Caruso wrote: > My question is the following: should both tables be merged into a > single table, with an additional field marking historic records ? Will > the queries on this table be slower than having them separated ?
I have a number of systems running which record 'footfall' so all the new records are purely today and views on the database using today's date provide the 'write' access. We have approaching a million records on some of the sites, and only yesterday a customer commented on just how fast they can run reports even covering a year at a time. Your archive process may be a little more complex, needing to identify records from different days as historic? But I'd still include a date with the historic flag to make that index a little more selective. That said - nowadays I could probably do a UNION on two tables and still be able to provide the historic activity view for a caller with today's activity - didn't have UNION when we started gathering data :) -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk
