Maybe we are all trying to solve the wrong problem.

What are you trying to achieve?

More flexibility and the ability to change the workflow more easily?

A reduction in the number of...

1. If you want manageable, extensible storage then this is what SANs are for. The one you must avoid like the plague is NAS as this will force all your...

Option 2 seems to say "build a 4 disk RAID 1+0 array and then sub-divide into partitions"? If that is that correct then I would never recommend it!

I'll give you...

I would suggest the answer is two..

Either you have mirrored two spindles two times and then striped the resulting array (RAID 1+0) is which case everything that happens to one...

Taking into consideration All the above posts, what about the 3rd option.

SYSDATETIME()

Advantages: Returns a DATETIME2

Disadvantages: ?

Personally, I prefer GETDATE() because there is also GETUTCDATE(). I don't believe there is an...

Collapse the structure to a single table and use a HIERARCHYID.

That way you can define a flexible heirarchy in this table and attach to specific points.

OK - From what I've understood.

Each Status has a set of common columns, which might include who changed it to that status, when the change happened etc.

These common columns are...

If you removed the surrogate keys on tables 2-6 you could make table 7 a list of the valid code combinations rather than the surrogate keys for the code. That...

Type security - Using an SQL_VARIANT column means we get data and type.

I agree with your thoughts on sparse columns - you always need 1 more!

I'll take another look at...

Any particular experience that leads you to this choice?

Of the 3, its my least favourite because

it offers no type security

its slow

Comments / Suggestions?!

Hmm - But the problem is that I need to keep the db structure unchanged.

If it was about presenting data to the Business Logic layer then no problem but my...

My thoughts exactly.

When you delete the contents of these tables, the space will be free within the database, and when you do the next iteration that space will get used...

Problem is when i create single table(CombinationOf20Tables) on the base of joining, i required some extra table which help me to store the result into single table. after creation of...

Yes, I prefer to have data in a Filegroup for Data, and leave the PRIMARY Filegroup for the system tables. It won't hurt you to do this.

My default db set...

If all you are doing is writing that data out to another file and you *always* want *every* column, then SELECT * would be fine.

If you can't categorically say that...