Re: Philosophical question - Staging tables, name and location

[Booth Martin <booth@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am a believer in a clearly defined staging process.  In the situation 
you describe I see Inbound staging libraries, Processing staging 
libraries, and then of course Production staging libraries.

Each of those stages in the process have differing requirements for 
security, integrity, disaster recovery, user interaction and no doubt 
other issues.

In my opinion.


On 1/28/2014 3:48 PM, Charles Wilt wrote:
> Another philosophical question for you all..
>
> I'm beginning to work with a once a week incremental data feed from an
> outside source that consists of about 30 tables.
>
> I'll end up with a set of 30 production tables and 30 staging tables.
>
> I intend to have the production tables in a separate library from the rest
> of my application (currently in 4 data libraries)
>
> I'm trying to decide rather of not to keep the staging tables in the same
> library as the production tables or in another library.
>
> Obviously, if I keep them in the same library, I'd need need to have the
> staging table named differently from the production version.  Whereas if I
> put the staging tables in another library I could have the same name.
>
> I was initially leaning toward same name, different libraries.  But now I'm
> thinking I want different names so I can use unqualified names and depend
> on the library list resolution.  Primarily so I can have TEST/DEV
> environments within my change management system (Aldon)
>
> But that leaves me with deciding rather or not to have the tables in one
> library or two.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Charles