Re: Design question regarding event log table processing
From: Bruno Lavoie <bl_at_brunol.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:49:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD+GXYOfgGkcidkc5v_XfR3j+sa3di06n3hMWJGxZQJEQQPMrw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hello Sayan,
yes you're right, direct with simplicity... I though of a consumption timestamp to be useful for some precessing time stats and reuse this column. Your suggested column can simply be added in conjunction with the timestamp.
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:49:07 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD+GXYOfgGkcidkc5v_XfR3j+sa3di06n3hMWJGxZQJEQQPMrw_at_mail.gmail.com>
Hello Sayan,
yes you're right, direct with simplicity... I though of a consumption timestamp to be useful for some precessing time stats and reuse this column. Your suggested column can simply be added in conjunction with the timestamp.
Thanks
Bruno
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Sayan Malakshinov <xt.and.r_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> Why not a simple indexed field "NOT_PROCESSED" number(1), where "null"
> means that it is already processed and 1 where not?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Sayan Malakshinov
> Senior performance tuning engineer
> PSBank
> Tel: +7 903 207-1576
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Jan 24 2013 - 21:49:07 CET