On May 10, 12:13 am, "walker.l2" <walker...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > If I enable journaling on the
> > archive table would that make it safer?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Would there be a performance [penalty]
>
> I don't believe so. If I remember correctly, the OS will cache the
> inserts until a COMMIT is issued.
>
> > and disk space penalty?
>
> Yes. Journalling does require some disk space.
>
> > What I would really like would be for the delete to run for a while,
> > and then be able to interrupt the delete, with the corresponding
> > inserts completing. Then I could restart the delete another time.
>
> You could do this by making the delete a programmed housekeeping /
> archive process, rather than relying on a trigger.
> Are you likely to be doing bulk (multi-million row) deletes? That
> suggests that your delete / housekeeping / archive process is perhaps
> not very well designed. (Of course, it might not be avoidable in your
> case, but to me this is a bad sign.)
Hi, and thanks for the comments.
The deletes are only going to be purge/archive operations, rather than
business transactions. The first one is going to delete the millions
as it will be several years worth. Subsequent ones will be annual so
will still be pretty big, but not quite so bad.
|
