Is there equivalent to Sybase Dynamic Archiving for SQL Server

Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically move
old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or third
party) ?
Any help would be appreciated...
Regards,
Mark Donoghue
MDonoghue@.refco.comI'm not aware of anything identical.
In SQL2K... you might be able to achieve a similiar effect by looking at
Partioned Views. Not real archiving, but you might get some of the benefits
you're looking for. Stricktly a roll your own solution.
SQL2005 adds support for partioned ranges (using multiple tables) that will
make it much easier to manage this. But still roll your own.
--
"Mark Donoghue" <MarkDonoghue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A27078A5-CD17-46C1-8DD1-AA9DA6002730@.microsoft.com...
> Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically
move
> old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
> database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
> Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or
third
> party) ?
> Any help would be appreciated...
> Regards,
> Mark Donoghue
> MDonoghue@.refco.com

Is there equivalent to Sybase Dynamic Archiving for SQL Server

Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically move
old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or third
party) ?
Any help would be appreciated...
Regards,
Mark Donoghue
MDonoghue@.refco.com
I'm not aware of anything identical.
In SQL2K... you might be able to achieve a similiar effect by looking at
Partioned Views. Not real archiving, but you might get some of the benefits
you're looking for. Stricktly a roll your own solution.
SQL2005 adds support for partioned ranges (using multiple tables) that will
make it much easier to manage this. But still roll your own.
"Mark Donoghue" <MarkDonoghue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A27078A5-CD17-46C1-8DD1-AA9DA6002730@.microsoft.com...
> Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically
move
> old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
> database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
> Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or
third
> party) ?
> Any help would be appreciated...
> Regards,
> Mark Donoghue
> MDonoghue@.refco.com

Is there equivalent to Sybase Dynamic Archiving for SQL Server

Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically move
old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or third
party) ?
Any help would be appreciated...
Regards,
Mark Donoghue
MDonoghue@.refco.comI'm not aware of anything identical.
In SQL2K... you might be able to achieve a similiar effect by looking at
Partioned Views. Not real archiving, but you might get some of the benefits
you're looking for. Stricktly a roll your own solution.
SQL2005 adds support for partioned ranges (using multiple tables) that will
make it much easier to manage this. But still roll your own.
"Mark Donoghue" <MarkDonoghue@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A27078A5-CD17-46C1-8DD1-AA9DA6002730@.microsoft.com...
> Sybase has a product called Dynamic Archiving which will automatically
move
> old records to a archive database, but all applications will see the two
> database as one (no changes to source code etc.)
> Is there an equivalent for SQL Server (either now, or part of 2005, or
third
> party) ?
> Any help would be appreciated...
> Regards,
> Mark Donoghue
> MDonoghue@.refco.com

is there archive somewhere?

Hi, I noticed that the oldest post is 6/11/2004 on this list. where can I
find the post before that time? Thanksgroups.google.com
"Jen" <Jen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:14D0E1B8-3AEA-4FD5-A93E-82EEF42CB38F@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I noticed that the oldest post is 6/11/2004 on this list. where can I
> find the post before that time? Thanks|||How can I find this group? I went to groups.google.com --> Computers >
Databases, there are 152, which one is this?
I remember I saw a post early 2004, I would like to find it.
Thanks
"Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:

> groups.google.com
>
> "Jen" <Jen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:14D0E1B8-3AEA-4FD5-A93E-82EEF42CB38F@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||It's not one of the "builtin" groups. You have to type in the actual name of
this newsgroup:
microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming
Better yet, just go to the advanced search page
(http://groups-beta.google.com/advanced_search) and enter search criteria
Jen wrote:
> How can I find this group? I went to groups.google.com --> Computers
> I remember I saw a post early 2004, I would like to find it.
> Thanks
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
Microsoft MVP -- ASP/ASP.NET
Please reply to the newsgroup. The email account listed in my From
header is my spam trap, so I don't check it very often. You will get a
quicker response by posting to the newsgroup.|||?
Go to groups.google.com
Enter your search phrase and add
group:microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"Jen" <Jen@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:06C505CC-C760-4C32-A5EB-541F04B142EF@.microsoft.com...
> How can I find this group? I went to groups.google.com --> Computers >
> Databases, there are 152, which one is this?
> I remember I saw a post early 2004, I would like to find it.
> Thanks
> "Aaron [SQL Server MVP]" wrote:
>
can I

Is there any advantages of using views in the same DB instead of tables in a differen

I've two databases. PROD & ARCHIVE
I need to archive data from production to archive database.
Right now I am using stored procedures to move from prod to archive.
If I use views in PROD which will reflect the ARCHIVE database tables, Is
there any advantages on connection?
Is "insert ...from archive.dbo.tableA select ....from prod.dbo.tableA" is
having connection over head over the views?
Please advice...Thanks...ShafNo overhead. The views would be only for typing convenience. If on 2005, syn
onyms would probably be
better if you just don't want to type in the database name.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Shaf.Khalidh" <itsprobablyme@.msn.com> wrote in message
news:uVclgt$GGHA.2440@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> I've two databases. PROD & ARCHIVE
> I need to archive data from production to archive database.
> Right now I am using stored procedures to move from prod to archive.
> If I use views in PROD which will reflect the ARCHIVE database tables, Is
there any advantages on
> connection?
> Is "insert ...from archive.dbo.tableA select ....from prod.dbo.tableA" i
s having connection over
> head over the views?
> Please advice...Thanks...Shaf
>|||Thanks Tibor,
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:%23AvomFAHGHA.240@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> No overhead. The views would be only for typing convenience. If on 2005,
> synonyms would probably be better if you just don't want to type in the
> database name.
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Shaf.Khalidh" <itsprobablyme@.msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uVclgt$GGHA.2440@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>