Archives of the TeradataForum

Message Posted: Sun, 15 Jun 2003 @ 13:21:54 GMT

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>

This is a perennial problem with dates in history tables - users want everything in one table then complain about FTS performance; if you split history into separate tables then they have to run repeated SQL statements against each table.

In a similar vein I saw limited success when trying to use ordered indexes.

I would hazard a guess in that the control table is used to determine 'last month', 'last three months', etc. I agree with Donald's suggestion where you prepare monthly views that are built dynamically based on these dates and your PPI definition. Of course Production code will have to be changed and users educated into using these views but the benefits should outweigh this effort (and probably justify a contract extension!)

	<Prev	Next>		<<First	<Prev	Next>	Last>>