We're using SQL Server 2000 on a Quad Xeon 3.2 Ghz Processor w/3 GB RAM. I always lean towards proper indexing, however I'm looking to convince the higher-ups that this Archive Solution is not necessary and won't have a positive impact on performance.
James Davis Software Engineer Kaleida Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Milburn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 4:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Archiving SQL table data What database are you using? Any enterprise DBMS is built to handle millions of records. If its running on decent hardware there should be no problem. Given your scenario, there seems to be no reason to worry about archiving your data into other tables. 20k-40k records is nothing. Steve -----Original Message----- From: "James Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent 9/21/2007 4:00:26 PM To: "CF-Talk" <[email protected]> Subject: Archiving SQL table dataIn general when using a relational database for client data storage, is it a good idea to archive data older than a certain date (like say 2 years) or just let good indexes take care of data growth? For example, we would move all data out of certain tables that grow very large (approx. 20K - 40K records, growing by 10K / yr.) to tables that aren't used often. This theoretically would speed up queries on those often used tables. The downside of course is writing new queries that use the "archived" tables to get old data when needed. So my question is: What is the standard practice for this issue? Archive or not? James Davis Software Engineer Kaleida Systems, Inc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Enterprise web applications, build robust, secure scalable apps today - Try it now ColdFusion Today ColdFusion 8 beta - Build next generation apps Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:289147 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
