FYI - what do you all think?
---------------------- Forwarded by Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT on 12/20/99 08:19 
AM ---------------------------
From: Dave Nommensen on 12/17/99 05:29 PM
To: Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: George Smith/HOU/ECT@ECT, Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine L 
Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Brenda F Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: purge of old Contract_Event_Status  

Just to clarify, its not the relative age of the production date, but the age 
of the event itself.

d.n.


To: George Smith, Edward Terry/HOU/ECT@ECT, Katherine L Kelly/HOU/ECT@ECT, 
Bryce Baxter/HOU/ECT@ECT, Randall L Gay/HOU/ECT@ECT, Brenda F 
Herod/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave Nommensen/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: purge of old Contract_Event_Status  

Do any of you see a problem with limiting this to the current month or 
current month +1
Need to know soon

Scotty


   
	
	
	From:  Dave Nommensen                           12/17/99 03:25 PM
	

To: Scotty Gilbert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Richard Pinion/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Trisha Luong/HOU/ECT@ECT, Benedicta Tung/HOU/ECT@ECT, Diane E 
Niestrath/HOU/ECT@ECT, Dave McMullan/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: purge of old Contract_Event_Status

Scotty/Richard,

Our DBAs would like to see what we can do to reduce the qty of rows in 
Contract_Event_Status.  We have over 1 Gig of data in that table.  I would 
like to suggest we have a nightly or weekly or monthly process to delete any 
row with a Last_Mod_Date over a month (or two) old.  So if someone balances 
February 1999 this month, we will keep it around for a month (or two).

Does any one else have a desire to keep this data for a shorter/longer period 
of time?

This is not an audit table.  This is just a "log" every nom/track/balance/EDI 
send/Fax send/sched qty/quick response since the beginning of time.

d.n.