On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 06:35:20PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I guess that's the trick, to have the "current" or at least "recent" > database and then the historical one. As of now, the process of polling > the 17 machines takes about 40 seconds or so (when I first started running > the process minutely, it was 20, so you can see I have to do something > soon :)) > > So assuming the two-db model, what's the trick to it? Here are some ideas > off the top of my head--can you (or any reader) please give me your > thoughts (be as brutal as you like--I'm under no illusion that I know what > I'm talking about):
Use UPDATE to update the records in the "current" database and either separately INSERT into the historical DB or use an ON UPDATE trigger to INSERT into the historical DB when entries in the current db are updated. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
