AW: Deleting workitems in a productive system

[Schmidinger, Heinz (Unaxis IT BZ)]

Hi Micheal,
 
I do it by defining variants in Tx SARA (this is the =
Archiving-'Workbench
;-) ).
The Taskid (TS...., WS....) is one of the Select-options in the
Archving-Report for Archving Object 'WORKITEM'.
So this is not a problem.
Like mentioned, only one of the methods can be done with periodicly
batchjobs.
 
The unsure one (deletion without AL) I can do in the moment only =
manually,
because I have to change the AL-Customizing before it runs and bck
afterwards. This is the critical point in my view.
 
If you need some more informations how to handle SARA, you are invited =
to
ask back. Maybe I can give you a short guidline as en entry if needed.
 
Regrads=20
Heinz
 
-----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2003 16:46
An: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Betreff: Re: Deleting workitems in a productive system
 
Hi Heinz.=20
Thanks for your input. The 'Archive to file and delete' solution seems
to me the 'cleanest', but how did you differentiate between task A to =
be
included in one archive and task B in another? This is my main problem
with this solution at the moment (and I suspect I'll hit your other
little problem too.).=20
 
In short, your answer is quite similar to what I had in mind, some are
deleted and others just archived into a black hole.=20
 
Another reason for using the delete jobs is that client has many
thousand error items that are quite old, I'd like to be rid of them
too.
 
Vielen Dank,=20
Gruss
Michael
 
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 04:08:52PM +0100, Schmidinger, Heinz (Unaxis IT =
BZ)
wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>=20
> maybe I can give you some of my expirence in this point:
>=20
> I have done both ways: If a user was very late with WI's =
(IDOC-ERRORS) I
> used the Deletion Job to reduce the ballast sppecially if they were =
not in
> Status Completed or DELETE which is a must for die Archiving Job.
>=20
> For all my WF's I do a definition of late rArchviing in the project =
from
> begin.
> WF's which must we have historical I archive with connection to =
Archive
Link
> and ArchiveInfoSystem (existing in 46B too, also the documentation =
says
no).
>=20
> Workflows we don't need anymore I archvie too, but without connection =
to
> ArchvieLink. Ss they were removed correctly from the Database and the
> ArchvieFile is written to the Operating System, wher they are deleted =
by
the
> BasisGroup.
>=20
>=20
> The Disadvantage of my Solution is, that I have to change the
AL-Customizing
> always between AL-Connection or not.
>=20
> I'm thinking about to do this by a litte programm running before and =
after
> the archiving-runs.
>=20
> Regards
>=20
> Heinz
> -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Michael Pokraka [mailto:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 13. Februar 2003 15:23
> An: SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Betreff: Deleting workitems in a productive system
>=20
> Greetings all,
> I have a requirement that's a bit conflicting:
> Client is generating a lot of workflows which have no historical
> significance (They are mostly for processing documents after =
creation).
>=20
> Now, we can use archiving, but something irks me about archiving a =
large
> amount of data (we're talking in Gigabytes/month), the majority of =
which
> is useless.
> Some alternatives come to mind: deleting, 'split' archiving, or just
> biting the bullet and using standard archiving. Some random thoughts =
on
> this:
>=20
>  - Deletion via RSWWHIDE and RSWWWIDE is not recommended by SAP or
>    'The Book' (and also in a recent post by Jocelyn :)
>    Here I would create and thoroughly test a set of variants to be =
run
>    regularly. However I'm curious as to what (if anything) might not =
be
>    covered by these jobs.
>  - Archiving these seperately. I'm not exactly an archiving expert =
and
>    have no idea if it's feasible to split/create variants of the
>    WORKITEM archiving object - one to archive the 'real' workflows =
and
>    one to archive the 'transient' ones into an electronic dustbin. I
>    don't see any selections based on any specific tasks.
>    If possible, this would be the favoured approach as I believe
>    archiving has a lesser impact on system load.
>  - Biting the bullet and just using normal archives. I have no idea
>    apart from storage requirements if there is any impact on things =
like
>    retrieval or anything else. Out of principle it's a bit irritating
>    though :-)
>=20
> Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> Cheers
> Mike