[AccessD] 2 quick questions

newsgrps newsgrps at dalyn.co.nz
Thu Jun 2 17:31:34 CDT 2011


I will chip in because I have a client that is wanting to be able to 
archive data on stock specifications that change.

For those wider tables (ie those with lots of fields) an alternative 
I have heard of is to have an "Archive" table with fields for 
ChangeDate, FieldName, OldValue.  Then only changed fields need to be 
stored.  The big problem I see with this is that for queries you 
would need to run a function for every field to get the relevant data.

This might be better for mid sized tables with not to few, not to 
many fields but still seems a clumsy way of doing things.

How does SQL do its transaction rollback thingy?

David Emerson
Dalyn Software Ltd
New Zealand

At 3/06/2011, Arthur Fuller wrote:
>You got that part right. Agree 100%. It can become difficult, as in a couple
>of dbs I have built in which 500+ tables were involved. I made no claim that
>my solution was perfect. I just had to deal with a specific problem
>regarding a specific period in time, and that's what I came up with. Anyone
>with a better solution is most welcome to contribute to this thread. I am
>always eager to learn from the experts on this forum.
>
>A.
>
>On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:31 PM, jwcolby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote:
>
> > I like the concept of PITA.  The implementation could range from works fine
> > to massive database bloat.  I think for narrow tables that change
> > occasionally it would work great.  For wide tables that change a lot it
> > would be problematic.
> >
> >
> > John W. Colby
> > www.ColbyConsulting.com
> >
> >
> >
>--
>AccessD mailing list
>AccessD at databaseadvisors.com
>http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd
>Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com




More information about the AccessD mailing list