Bruce,
I prefer the first option. It is closer to the normalized model and fits better in the relational model. My experience is that these kind of solutions are more stable, more flexible and need less maintenance. Tony From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruce Chitiea Sent: donderdag 12 juli 2012 20:50 To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Design Opinions Requested All: I need to track active vs. obsoleted status for a range of primary-key data objects, while keeping them all available for historical purposes. Fortunately, these don't change very often, if at all. I've thought of two approaches: 1. Append four columns to each table: xactive ('x' prefix indicating binary flag [1|0] begdate enddate flagdate or: 2. Maintain a record status table: RECORDSTATUS ------------------- RecordStatusID <pk> TableName - one of the tracked tables RecordID <fk> - Primary-key value to be flagged ReplacedRecordID <fk> - Value inactivated by RecordID xActive BegDate EndDate FlagDate Record status would update infrequently, but would be read during each view creation involving a tracked object (...where recordstatus.xactive = 1). Approach #2 appeals. But am I trading code-simplicity for performance? Or does the idea of a 'RecordStatus' table have legs? 'Preciate your perspectives. Bruce
