Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 08/16/07 14:16

Yas (yasar1@gmail.com) writes:
> Hi, sorry perhaps I should have been a bit more clear. Well, Table2 is
> essentially a Master table that will have a record of all users that
> were ever added to Table1. So even if at a later date userA and userB
> were removed from Table1, a record of UserA and UserB will always be
> there in Table2.
>
> So yes right now Table1 and 2 are identical and that seems
> pointless...however soon Table2 will be different in that it will have
> a record of rows that are no longer present in Table1. I'm keeping
> track of them via another method which checks if a row has been
> removed from Table1 if so it adds the date of removal to a column of
> that row in Table2. This is why I dont want to update Table2 if a row
> is removed in Table1...only if a new row is added or an existing one
> modified.
>
> I hope that explains what I'm trying to do :-) can I still use
> Triggers to do this?

Since the tables are in the same database, triggers is definitely the
way to go.


--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

[Back to original message]