Posted by stephen on 08/21/07 09:25

On Aug 16, 2:14 pm, Yas <yas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 16 Aug, 13:46, Erland Sommarskog <esq...@sommarskog.se> wrote:
>
> > The first question is why do you want to do this in the first place? It
> > seems funny that you would want to have two identical tables in the same
> > database? Or ar the tables in different databases on different servers?
>
> 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?
>
> > If the tables are on the same server, a trigger would be the best way
> > to do it.
>
> Yes, they are on the same server and in the same Database.

Couldn't you just use one table and add column use as a DELETED flag
to logically delete a user so the physical row is still there?

[Back to original message]