Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Chris Riesbeck <Chris.Riesbeck@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Java DB rotation
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:57:44 -0600
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <9oqrt9FeibU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <n7jei7582sh0m08frucvasubaaiplnvc2s@4ax.com> <jg7j6n$8ho$1@localhost.localdomain> <s4kei7lifs11l4l7gb0ci5vde0bh2qld4k@4ax.com> <4f2752d1$0$283$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <9opk4aFpfhU2@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net wh6GBbY4YuiZ8qMKiKeW2wlFQrd5cIj1RfgTZWT4f+pJ13mvTt
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MNORuyDu0TfIByC7SZlGmudlmQk=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0.1
In-Reply-To: <9opk4aFpfhU2@mid.individual.net>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:11678

On 1/31/2012 1:38 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 31.01.2012 03:32, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 1/30/2012 9:24 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 02:21:11 +0000 (UTC), Martin Gregorie
>>> <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 18:08:04 -0800, Jim Lee wrote:
>>>>> I have a Java server controller that read/write to Database table
>>>>>
>>>>> Java server will start read / write to a new DB table every
>>>>> week/monday
>>>>> e.g.
>>>>> table-1-2-2012 table-1-9-2012 table-1-16-2012 table-1-23-2012 ... etc
>>>>>
>>>> What problem are you using table rotation to solve?
>>>>
>>>> What would prevent you from using a single table containing datestamped
>>>> rows which are archived and/or deleted the rows after "cycle length"
>>>> days?
>>>
>>> my main problem is how to make sure "how to get the correct table name
>>> to read/write to" depending what day in the week
>>>
>>> start a new DB table is a must since it's going through some other
>>> REST backend layer
>>
>> There is nothing in REST that requires such a table structure.
>>
>> And it would be better to fix the bad code requiring such
>> a table rollover than to make other apps bad to work with it.
>
> Another question: Jim, what database are you using? If the instance
> requiring multiple tables is afraid of volume the typical solution to
> this issue is called "partitioning". If your database supports it,
> that's typically the way to go for such kind of data.

Pretty much every response from the OP has suggested either really bad 
intra-team communication (distributed team?), or a system architect 
angling for an appearance on the Daily WTF.