Deleting workitems in a productive system

[Michael Pokraka]

I was wondering where those were. In 4.0 they were quite abundant, but
my current client on 4.6c doesn't have any. Found a note though - that
functionality is no longer used, no more type C WI's.
I did find another note where (for a change) SAP don't discourage the
use of RSWWIDE - 49545, but it doesn't tell you a huge amount more.
 
Thanks for the input,
Mike
 
On Thu, Feb 13, 2003 at 11:26:11AM -0500, Aydin, Kemal (Kemal)** CTR ** wrote:
> Mike,
>
> There is an OSS note to run RSWWCIDE for the "C" type work items. You can search OSS with RSWWCIDE. It's much faster - cause it's a direct delete ...
>
> Thanks,
> Kemal
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Pokraka [SMTP:workflow at quirky.me.uk]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 9:23 AM
> > To:   SAP-WUG at MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> > Subject:      Deleting workitems in a productive system
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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:
> >
> >  - 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 :-)
> >
> > Any input would be greatly appreciated.
> > Cheers
> > Mike