I feel like I'm missing a major point here. Assuming the table is correctly range partitioned and indexed, most databases should be able to handle relatively large table sizes. I agree that is a best practice to archive old, unused data, but that can likely be done on a monthly basis, or less often, depending on traffic. Why would you need to consider a solution that "will ramp up proportionally with traffic"?
Jim http://www.thepeoplesfeed.com/blog On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Peter De Berdt <[email protected]>wrote: > > On 20 Sep 2009, at 17:09, Colin Law wrote: > > Actually that could be never or always, relying on random numbers to make > > decisions on whether to do something "most of the time" is a bad idea. > > > Since quantum physics works entirely by probabilities (that is random > numbers) and microprocessors are built from semi-conductors which > operate because of the laws of quantum physics, it could be said that > any software is entirely dependent on the operation of random numbers. > Therefore however it is coded it is 'relying on random numbers to > make decisions on whether to do something'. > > Seriously, though, to suggest that something coded using random > numbers to be executed 1% of the time may either never run or always > run is incorrect. Assuming it is correctly coded of course. > > > Well, since you are going on the philosophical tour here, there's more than > one random variable coming into play here. Not only the mod 10 result, but > also the number of hits on the application, the time at which they hit the > application etc. That's not even playing with probabities, that's just plain > gambling. > > All I was trying to point out, is that you have no way of knowing if and > when the sessions table would be cleaned, just like you have no way of > knowing if you have a chance of winning a game of bingo or the lotto, since > you are bringing in a lot more variables than just the semi-random computer > generated ones. You could hit it the first time, you could hit it twice in a > row and you could wait days to hit it. The fact that you have a 10% chance > or a 1% chance of hitting the right number is still a probability, not a > certainty. When it comes to cleaning a table that just keeps piling up > records that become stale, I do like to have some kind of guarantee that it > will clean when I want it, not when quantum physics and random people > surfing to my application decide it's the right time. > > Best regards > > > Peter De Berdt > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
