On 2011-04-25 20:00, Leonardo Francalanci wrote:
> > The amount of data loss on a big table will be <1% of the data
> > loss caused by truncating the whole table.
>
> If that 1% is random (not time/transaction related), usually you'd
> rather have an empty table. In other words: is a table that is not
> consistant with anything else in the db useful?
>
Depends on the application, if it serves for pure caching then it is
fully acceptable and way
better than dropping everything.
--
Jesper