[AccessD] Creating new tables as opposed to updating records in an existing indexed table

Long time, no post, didn't want people to think I have stopped thinking about databases entirely.

So here is a question, I was reading this thread (which related to Oracle of course, not Access) and wondering if the "truths" in this post are relative to Oracle only.

It struck me as odd that the recommendation was to create a new table from a multi-million record table, with whatever updated values certain fields required - rather than update the fields directly when the table was indexed. Even though it meant duplicating the table, building all the indexes in the successor table, and sunsetting dropping the predecessor table.

It just boggles my mind that this is so - and I wondered if it is regardless of platform.

http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:6407993912330