Fritz Borgstedt wrote: > It *is* already rethought and we have built in lots of stuff to have > the database not degrading. And it is working *automatically*. Your > approach is the same as I see with people who loves to tune their > harddisk (compressing, moving, whatver). After some time they really > need all the work again and again. You see my different approach: I > never tuned a HD in 30 years.
To paraphrase what I have said in previous disagreements with you: At most locations I have implemented ASSP, taking additional steps to prevent pollution was not necessary - but a few implementations it *is*. Just because I may not have experienced something that you have - I would not discount something that you say as non-existent or inconsequential. Why you insist on the opposite is beyond me. You're comparison the hard drive defragmentation is quite frivolous. Defragmenting a hard drive is only necessary depending on how you actually use the disk and the information on it. In some situations defragmentation would not have discernable effect on performance that you could notice or measure - but in other situations, defragmentation can have a huge impact on read performance; especially for larger files. I do not understand why you insist everything is black and white and is only relative to your interpretations. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Assp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/assp-user
