Re: Newbie question on table design.
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 00:24:57 -0400
Message-ID: <uWeYh.1376$tp5.372_at_newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:dwaYh.131520$DE1.106984_at_pd7urf2no...
> Cimode wrote:
>
>> ... Historising tables in any form of shape is a hack. If a
>> DBMS requires so much operations to historize information what's the
>> point using it in the first place?
>> ...
>
> Not entirely sure I understand this, but I suspect I agree. I think
> keeping history involves a "separate" database, even though I don't have a
> simple definition of what "separate" means in practice, only that
> operations on separate db's mightn't always give the same results given
> the same values.
>
Why would you need a "separate" database? I was under the impression that all you need to do is to add a time dimension to each relation for which you need to keep history. The additional dimension can be implemented as an attribute with an interval data type.
> p
Received on Fri Apr 27 2007 - 06:24:57 CEST