Hi Nathan, On 10 Oct 2007 at 12:42, Nathan Anderson wrote:
> We are currently not working with a huge data set. The two tables we are > auditing have 5,800 and 1,400 records. And the audit tables have 29,000 and > 8,200 records. Ah, but you have separate audit tables though, so operations on the main table aren't compromised by the need to maintain an audit. I don't mind if there's a performance hit when looking up old versions of a record, that's the price you pay for wanting audit. However, I'm keen to prevent audit from compromising performance in the primary tables. Putting audit records in separate tables acheives that aim (except during updates of course, but the penalty then shouldn't be too high anyway). Do you have any DB relationship between your primary table and it's audit counterpart, or do you do all that in code? Cheers, Rob Hills Waikiki, Western Australia Mobile +61 (412) 904-357 Fax: +61 (8) 9529-2137 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
