Is there any way to merge data sets together or view many data sets at the same time? Our system had been set up to do current data set storage daily so we have hundreds of current data sets each for its own day. Therefore, if I want to view anything that is no longer in the active data set I can only view it day by day (using "configure events" in process history view and selecting the individual data set) and am not able to view larger time periods at once.The "Configure Events" window will only let me select one data set at a time. Is there another method of doing this? For the future, I am going to change the settings so that the current data sets will fill to a certain memory limit rather than creating one every day. But for the data sets that have already been created obviously this will not help.
DeltaV event chronicles (past v. 8) are SQL data bases. You should reasonably be able to merge them, however you may have to engage Emerson advanced services if you want it done right.
The design consideration for Event chronicle and continuous historian sizing is estimating a consumption rate baseline for your system. Then size datasets to provide the reasonable amount of segmented data, say the last 6 months, in the active dataset. Balance this against performance, as a dataset that is too large will be difficult to query.
I would like to see Process History View developed to seamlessly query the appropriate dataset based on date and time of the query, so that you don't have to select different data sets to find what you are looking for (just like it does for continuous history).
Sounds like a UDEP request.
In reply to Youssef.El-Bahtimy:
Thanks for the reply. If there is no user utility for merging the data sets then I will just gut it out and export them individually and compile the information that is being requested as I do not want to risk anything going wrong or corrupting any of the files.
I would also like to see Process History View work in such a manner. Maybe that change will be made in a future version.
In reply to Steven Estes:
In reply to Petrisky: