Sign up Calendar Latest Topics Donate
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Noknroll

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 843
Reply with quote  #1 
anyone got ideas they can share on pro's & con's of splitting databases. Related to another recent topic in CSI. 
Is it better to (1)split database or (2) drop off and archive history/data say 1 year and older?
Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #2 
I split them Nok,

Negative is you will have 2 sets of AP sets etc. but who changes those anyway.  Recently split some because the whole thing was nearing 2Gb and v5.61 or unde the limit is that.

another neg is that you end up with a lot of DB's. But it does take a LONG time to build up 2 Gb.

realistically keeping history is not great either.  No one goes back to 1996 ever.  Unless you have incredible record keeping which I don't.

Positive - I guess I can go back to ground zero.
fburgos

Sr. Member
Registered:
Posts: 670
Reply with quote  #3 
I think I would split dates back to 2 years and keep tree structure using DBulty using the option limit time span.

If you ever upgrade to 6.x you can use the option merge

Attached Images
jpeg IMG-20200319-WA0099.jpg (61.98 KB, 10 views)

Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #4 
CSI is good like that.  When I worked for SKF (years ago) the starting point was 1 Gb even if DB was empty.  Hard drive space is not an issue anymore and copy speed isn't either.  I remember coping with a luggable with 10 Mb hdd. Those were the days. Having to shrink the CSI DB's regularly.  I used to get it started before going to bed.  All done in morning. Oli might remember. Gee I'm getting old.

OLi

Sr. Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,914
Reply with quote  #5 
Deja Vue, yes since CSI is a flat file, limits followed the OS max file limit. In DOS it was quite small in several stages and also in Win I think or obvously. So the above behavior I did recognize but could not tell it was database size, I had suppressed that. I did split databases most often it was something about cleaning out older data that was quirky or I saw as quirky at the time. Nice to have feature propagate for centuries. I have had similar in Oracle based systems in on-line applications collecting 16+16 ch at max speed on 1T level so it never completely goes away it seems larger space, larger demand for data.....
__________________
Good Vibrations since early 1950's, first patented vibrometer 1956 in the US.
http://www.vtab.se
RustyCas

Avatar / Picture

Admin
Registered:
Posts: 1,810
Reply with quote  #6 
I split them and never delete old data. I have 15 years of monthly data in some. I use note codes to record the history of every machine (rebuilt pump, rebuilt motor, new coupling style, new fan bearings, etc). I have better histories than my customers do. Also, it’s nice to be able to say “It’s always run like this” or “It used to run much better - what are you doing different?”, etc.
__________________
"The trend is your friend"
Noknroll

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 843
Reply with quote  #7 
Thanks All, you've given me something to think about, although I am leaning towards dropping off old data and archiving that way the history, if needed, is still accessible and I don't have an excess of data bases to manage.
Sinski

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member
Registered:
Posts: 394
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noknroll
Thanks All, you've given me something to think about, although I am leaning towards dropping off old data and archiving that way the history, if needed, is still accessible and I don't have an excess of data bases to manage.

This is what I do. I run 2 databases on my site. One for the paper machine and one for rest of the mill. Recently had to do this and I generally retain the last 2 years of data. To keep splitting databases beyond that makes things more difficult I think, especially on the paper machine. One of our other sites did this and they had the machine drives on a different databases to the machine rolls and it becomes a nightmare to analyse.
Noknroll

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 843
Reply with quote  #9 
Sinski
Hmm, still trying to decide........If I do split I will do something similar, along the lines of external plant and internal plant 

Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #10 
we used to split... paper machine rolls and ancillary. 2 dbs. per site. 

Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #11 
Good work Sinsk!!

Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #12 
You are on v5.61 so holding back on upgrading.  Once you do you can all combine!

Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #13 
I think I mentioned. I split the DB for Box Hill. I did have to start it all again after you know. You are familiar.  I would love to run those routes with you again.
Vibe-Rater

Avatar / Picture

Sr. Member / Moderator / Supporter
Registered:
Posts: 1,397
Reply with quote  #14 
With all in lock down an v in WA I have been doing the lot by myself ... I  still capable of doing PM4 in a day!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.