Sql-server – History table design for supertype/subtype

IMO It is much better to have a design with multiple tables. You will be able to track changes more effectively that way.

Also, for the fields that change, I would not go with a Name-Value pair of storage. I would actually create tables with appropriately named columns.

Is data space really an issue for you? You should run a few calculations estimates to see if space is really going to be an issue. You'll be very surprised to see how much of a non-factor hard disk space is.

Physical implementation of subtyping in a database is a complex issue. Unless you have a situation where it offers compelling advantages (see below for one or two examples) it adds complexity into implementation while providing relatively little value.

Having done this with really complex subtyping (applicaitons and sentences on a court case management system, disparate combined-risk commercial insurance contract structures) I guess I have some observations on this. Some significant corner cases are:

• If the total number of database fields across the subtypes is relatively low (say: less than 100) or there is significant commonality between subtypes then splitting the subtypes out into separate physical tables is probably of little value. It will add significant overhead to reporting queries and searches. In most cases it's best to have a single table and manage your subtyping within the application. (Probably the closest to your problem)

• If your subtyping is very disjoint, and different subtypes have type-dependent data structures hanging off them (i.e. child tables or more complex structures), then subtype tables make sense. In this case, each subtype probably has relatively little commonality within the application (i.e. there is probably a whole subsystem within the application dedicated to that subtype). Most reporting and querying will probably occur within a given sub-type, with cross-type queries mainly being restricted to a handful of common fields. (Court case management system)

• If you have a large number of subtypes with disparate attributes and/or a requirement to make this configurable then a generic structure and supplementary metadata may be more appropriate. See this SO posting for a rundown on some possible approaches. (Insurance policy administration system)

• If you have a very large number of fields with little commonality across your sub-types and little requirement to query across sub-type tables (i.e. nothing much in the way of multi-way outer joins against your sub-type tables) then sub-type tables may help to manage the column sprawl. (Pathologically complex version of your problem)

• Some O/R mappers may only support a particular approach to managing sub-classes.

In most cases physical sub-type tables in a DB schema are a bit of a solution in search of a problem, as they potentially have undesirable side-effects.

In your case, I assume you have a relatively modest number of sub-types and a manageable number of attributes. Your diagram and question don't indicate any intention to hang child tables off the records. I would suggest that you consider going with the first option suggested above and maintaining one table and manage the sub-typing within your application.