By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,501 Members | 1,859 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,501 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

A design question

P: n/a
This question is not strictly Oracle only but as I'm using Oracle 8i I
couldn't think of a better place to post it!

Anyway my problem/qustion is that I have a record that has in access of 200
fields - all the fields relate entirely to a record. Virtually all fields
are optional e.g NULL.

Just wondering is there is a better way to manage them as the users want an
audit log of changes so before every update the whole record has to written
to the audit table - this can happen if theres only one change. I know I
could work out a way to just write changed fields values but time is so
tight I have to write the entire record for now.

I could move blocks of fields in to other related tables but there will
ALWAYS be a one to one relationship so it seems wrong to me anyway to
separate them.

Any suggestions/ideas?

thanks

harry
Jul 19 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
"Blueyonder" <a@abc.com> wrote in message news:<Ca*********************@news-text.cableinet.net>...
This question is not strictly Oracle only but as I'm using Oracle 8i I
couldn't think of a better place to post it!

Anyway my problem/qustion is that I have a record that has in access of 200
fields - all the fields relate entirely to a record. Virtually all fields
are optional e.g NULL.

Just wondering is there is a better way to manage them as the users want an
audit log of changes so before every update the whole record has to written
to the audit table - this can happen if theres only one change. I know I
could work out a way to just write changed fields values but time is so
tight I have to write the entire record for now.

I could move blocks of fields in to other related tables but there will
ALWAYS be a one to one relationship so it seems wrong to me anyway to
separate them.

Any suggestions/ideas?
Slightly off the wall, but....
Why not specify RMAN and LOGMINER and keep the archive logs for the
audit proscribed period? I believe you can reconstruct the
transactions with LOGMINER and not involve the additional overhead of
an audit subsystem?
thanks

harry

Jul 19 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.