Aldo Caruso wrote:

> My question is the following: should both tables be merged into a
> single table, with an additional field marking historic records ? Will
> the queries on this table be slower than having them separated ?

I have a number of systems running which record 'footfall' so all the new
records are purely today and views on the database using today's date provide
the 'write' access. We have approaching a million records on some of the sites,
and only yesterday a customer commented on just how fast they can run reports
even covering a year at a time. Your archive process may be a little more
complex, needing to identify records from different days as historic? But I'd
still include a date with the historic flag to make that index a little more
selective. That said - nowadays I could probably do a UNION on two tables and
still be able to provide the historic activity view for a caller with today's
activity - didn't have UNION when we started gathering data :)

--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk