... | ... | @@ -155,6 +155,8 @@ If it is found then it would be used for new data. Otherwise insert would be use |
|
|
This way we do not have to play with looking for old records and deleting them and
|
|
|
then waiting for vacuum in Postgresql for reclaiming storage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Response: It is far simpler and faster to simply "add to the end" and age off "from the beginning". This lets the table operate like a FIFO queue and the logic is straight forward. Trying to reuse existing but obsolete records would be a good deal more complicated and quite likely slower. It would require more trips to the database or a stored procedure. I don't think we are looking at a volume of records that waiting for Postgresql to reclaim space is going to be an issue. If it is then it isn't tuned properly. I believe we should follow the KISS principle here, until or unless it proves to be insufficient.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Authors (please add yourself when you contribute):
|
|
|
|
|
|
List of authors as of July 1st, 2020:
|
... | ... | |