Gdadgfdfdsfd Adsfasdfs Adfas Aa Sdas Sfda Sdf Asd Dfsa Dsf

• • •

t requires that the new version of the entire table be transported to the staging database, not just the change data, thereby greatly increasing transport costs. The computational cost of performing the two MINUS operations on the staging database can be very high. Table differencing cannot capture data changes that have reverted to their old values. For example, suppose the price of a product changes several times between the old version and the new version of the product's table. If the price in the new version ends up being the same as the old, table differencing cannot detect that the price has fluctuated. Moreover, any intermediate price values between the old and new versions of the product's table cannot be captured using table differencing. There is no way to determine which changes were made as part of the same transaction. For example, suppose a sales manager creates a special discount to close a deal. The fact that the creation of the discount and the creation of the sale occurred as part of the same transaction cannot be captured, unless the source database is specifically designed to do so.

Change-value selection involves capturing the data on the source database by selecting the new and changed data from the source tables based on the value of a specific column. For example, suppose the source table has a LAST_UPDATE_DATE column. To capture changes, you base your selection from the source table on the LAST_UPDATE_DATE column value. However, there are also several problems with this method:

The overhead of capturing the change data must be borne on the source database, and you must run potentially expensive queries against the source table on the source database. The need for these queries may force you to add indexes that would otherwise be unneeded. There is no way to offload this overhead to the staging database.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful