Posted by David Portas on 12/17/06 23:43

Matik wrote:
>
> Of course, I could ommit using 'working' table, and have only history,
> with inserts, and having a primary table containing a pointer to last -
> newest record as my primary table, to get the newest record.
> The problem is, I'm afraid a little of performance, sice there is all
> other actions done on the primary table (select, searches aso.)
> Having a big historical table, I will still need to get countinous
> joins, to get the newest record, and even having a good indexing and
> relation set up, it might be slow while table can be big.
>

The way to optimise is with good indexes and good query design. You say
"it might be slow" so obviously you haven't reached that stage yet. On
the other hand you know for sure that a redundant copy of the data will
have an additional performance cost, both for updates and queries.

--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP

Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.

SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--

[Back to original message]