Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange
2 Incorporated comment
source | link

Why won't you go for System Versioned Temporal table (MSSQL2016SQL Server 2016 onwards). I think it will address your requirement.

There are other vendors that support temporal tables as well. Both Oracle and IBM Db2 had this for 5-6 years now, they are also arguably more complete than SQL Server's implementation.

You can also implement a homegrown version in almost all DBMS, but some parts are trickier than others, overlaps for example. Performance can also be a bit of a challenge.

Why won't you go for System Versioned Temporal table (MSSQL2016). I think it will address your requirement.

Why won't you go for System Versioned Temporal table (SQL Server 2016 onwards). I think it will address your requirement.

There are other vendors that support temporal tables as well. Both Oracle and IBM Db2 had this for 5-6 years now, they are also arguably more complete than SQL Server's implementation.

You can also implement a homegrown version in almost all DBMS, but some parts are trickier than others, overlaps for example. Performance can also be a bit of a challenge.

1
source | link

Why won't you go for System Versioned Temporal table (MSSQL2016). I think it will address your requirement.