> >In true, we need run the mass delete before or we will could leave some deleted rows in the table, leading to a not equal state in the local table...
> >
> >So seems to me that, "Insert or Update" will not be a good idea in this specific case...
> >
> >Any other ideas?
>
> Are there many changes to this table? If not, you could have - well, more or less a copy of it that you populate through a trigger when changes happens to the original table. This copy would have to contain a few additional fields - a new primary key since a record might be updated several times before deletion and a field saying whether the trigger that fired was due to adding a record, modifying it or deleting. Then you could just modify your client database with what was inserted into this copy table since last time the client updated its table.
>
> Of course, if the server deletes 20000 rows each day and adds 20000 new rows and you only update the client once a month, then this is a stupid idea.
>
> HTH,
> Set
>

Hi Set,
I am not sure that I understood it. But definitively the server do NOT deletes, adds or update 20000 rows a day.
Explain me more about the deletion part. When I delete the row in the server and the client is not in the network that time. It will have to add to another table what row was deleted? Is that?
Thanks for your idea and time. We would not like to do a complete journaling for this, but maybe we could do an hybrid process. :)