you could also automate reporting to a few times a day.

Regards,
Dave

>~<-----Original Message-----
>~<From: Greg Kavalec [mailto:Kavalec@B...]
>~<Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 4:39 PM
>~<To: professional vb
>~<Subject: [pro_vb] RE: SQL Server & VB
>~<
>~<
>~<I would process a current-day-table once per day, appending the contents
>~<to history, and clearing it.  (Or multiple smaller 'runs' per day.)
>~<
>~<There is then no need for your master history database and your recording
>~<database to even be on the same box.
>~<
>~<-----Original Message-----
>~<From: Russel. A.K [mailto:russel@e...]
>~<Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2001 2:18 PM
>~<To: professional vb
>~<Subject: [pro_vb] SQL Server & VB
>~<
>~<
>~<Hi there
>~<I'm developing a SMDR (Station Message Detail Recording) software in VB6
>~<which receives Call details from a cluster of PBX systems. I'm using SQL
>~<server 6.5 as backend. The problem I'm facing is the enormous
>~<amount of data
>~<I receive daily. It's like about 150,000 + records in 24 hours.
>~<So, you can
>~<imagine the response time when u run a report. I'm quiet new to
>~<SQL and I've
>~<never manipulated this much information in my career. Because of
>~<the access
>~<time I've made 365 tables (each stores the call details for  a particular
>~<day). So, what i want to know is if this the right logic or I'm making a
>~<mistake by making a table each for a day; Is it some configuration which
>~<creates the bottleneck.Or is Oracle better than SQL server. As I'm new to
>~<SQL I don't mind switching to Oracle for the sake or
>~<performance.   Please
>~<help me with some clues.
>~<
>~<Regards
>~<
>~<Russel
>~<
>~<
>~<---
>~<
>~<
>~<
>~<
>~<