I have this two models, which one is better

You should think about partitioning the table for a big reason.

All indexes you have on a giant table, even just one index, can generated a lot of CPU load and disk I/O just to perform index maintenance when executing INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs.

I wrote an earlier post back on October 7, 2011 on why Table Partitioning would be a big help. Here is one excerpt from my past post:

Partitioning of data should serve to group data that are logically and cohesively in the same class. Performance of searching each partition need not be the main consideration as long as the data is correctly grouped. Once you have achieved the logical partitioning, then concentrate on search time. If you are just separating data by id only, it is possible that many rows of data may never be accessed for reads or writes. Now, that should be a major consideration: Locate all ids most frequently accessed and partition by that. All less frequently accessed ids should reside in one big archive table that is still accessible by index lookup for that 'once in a blue moon' query.

You can read my entire post later on this.

To cut right to the chase, you need to research and find out what data is rarely used in your 10GB table. That data should be placed in an archive table that is readily accessible should you need adhoc queries for a historical nature. Migrating that archival from the 10GB, followed by OPTIMIZE TABLE on the 10GB table, can result in a Working Set that is faster to run SELECTs, INSERTs, UPDATEs, and DELETEs. Even DDL would go faster on a 2GB Working Set than a 10GB table.

UPDATE 2012-02-24 16:19 EDT

Two points to consider

1. From your comment, it sounds like normalization is what you may need.
2. You may need to migrate out everything over 90 days old into an archive table but still access archive and working set at the same time. If your data is all MyISAM, I recommend using the MERGE storage engine. First, you create the MERGE table map once that unites a working set MyISAM table and an archive MyISAM table. You would keep data less than 91 days in one MyISAM table and rollover any data over 90 days old into the archive. You would query the MERGE table map only.

Here are two posts I made on how to use it:

• get column from too many tables in mysql
• Separate tables or partition one huge table?

Here is an additional post I made on tables with a lot of columns

Too many columns in MySQL

Yes, there is a pretty big pitfall you're going to run into fairly quickly, and that is with the size and maintenance of the tables. You are somewhat on the right track by saying that you want to put your data into a temporary table daily, and then move it into your permanent table, but you'll soon run into trouble with this scheme.

For example, let's say you want to "roll off" the oldest month's worth of data after two years. In your design, you would have to issue a DELETE statement against your big, big table. This will likely be somewhat slow, depending on the number of indexes you have. Also, it will cause index fragmentation, and the only way to fix that would be to rebuild or reorganize the indexes on this very large table which would also cause performance problems. There are a whole host of other issues with a big single table type design as well. For example, with a big, single table, you can't do FILEGROUP based backups, which means that if you want to have a full backup of your database, it's gonna be BIG, and it's gonna take a LONG time to complete.

What's the solution? Table partitioning. Read about this in depth, in as many places as you can. Basically, partitioning allows you to split up your data onto "tables within tables" -- each partition shares the same schema, and is accessed through the table object, but can be indexed and maintained differently. Partitions are basically tables, cut up by some useful key. In your case it will likely be date. They can be dropped just like (and just as fast as) tables, which means that if you partition your big data tables by date, you can simply drop old partitions instantly, with no adverse effect to the indexes on any of the other partitions. You can put partitions on different filegroups, which means that older partitions can be rolled off, or rolled on to cheaper commodity storage if it's not commonly used. Last but not least, in SQL 2012 you'll be able to create COLUMNSTORE type indexes on your older, read-only partitions, while having a different, more insert-oriented indexing scheme on the active partition where you're inserting all your sensor data.

Hope this helps. You have a good amount of research to do regarding partitioning and partitioning schemes, but hopefully now you know the direction you need to be looking.

P.S.: Oh, and I forgot your bulleted list of questions... Answer 1, 2, and 5. See above. Answer 3: In SQL Server, you can compress on a partition by partition basis, so compress your older partitions aggressively using PAGE compression. But I believe your out-of-row large data types will not be compressed if you do this -- again, you may want to alleviate this problem by normalizing your sensor values. Answer 4: Absolutely not, but if all you want to do is store static data by day and never search on it any other way, compressed flat files may be a much easier way to go.

P.P.S: Oh, and another thing. You don't need your two-table solution to make this all work. Large binary sensor data should be of type VARBINARY(MAX) because its values can be stored "out of row" but still be a column in a single table (see the sp_tableoption documentation). You may want to consider normalizing some of your sensor data out of the binary data you have in the table, though, because your database won't be good for much beyond retrieving chunks of sensor data by time if you don't.