Filters - A good way to limit data at subscribers?

We use merge replication where data created at a control centre, then
modified in a filtered publication at the subscribers. We currently have
about 100 subscribers.
Publication is filter is WHERE LocationRef=XXX
We need to retain data at the control centre but not at subscribers, so does
it make sense to alter the filter to somthing like WHERE LocationRef=XXX AND
VisitDate>YYYY to achieve this, thereby reducing the data stored at each
subscriber?
Tony Toker
Data Identic Ltd.
This is not the correct way to do this.
What will happen is that data which is modified at the publisher or
subscriber will be merged if it meets the filtering criteria. However as the
data ages at the publisher or subscriber it will remain there, unless there
is a job which deletes/archives these rows so the merge replication process
will identify them as changed and then delete them from the publisher and
susbcriber. You would probably want to initiate the delete on the subscriber
to remove them there, but retail them on the publisher.
"Tony Toker" <xyzzy@.identic.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cqbl9o$dkv$1$8300dec7@.news.demon.co.uk...
> We use merge replication where data created at a control centre, then
> modified in a filtered publication at the subscribers. We currently have
> about 100 subscribers.
> Publication is filter is WHERE LocationRef=XXX
> We need to retain data at the control centre but not at subscribers, so
does
> it make sense to alter the filter to somthing like WHERE LocationRef=XXX
AND
> VisitDate>YYYY to achieve this, thereby reducing the data stored at each
> subscriber?
> Tony Toker
> Data Identic Ltd.
>