Should 'tx_falsecuredownload_download' be excluded from reference index?

[LeoniePhiline]

We have a considerable amount (almost 12 M) of records in the tx_falsecuredownload_download table, and we would want to keep them. (We do already have automated deletion of old records in place - the project is just very active.)

This makes updating or even checking the reference index take hours. Since tx_falsecuredownload_download is a statistics table, the references might not be relevant from a system perspective.

Should fal_securedownload always listen to the IsTableExcludedFromReferenceIndexEvent event and exclude the download statistics table?

This is trivial to implement per project. I merely want to start a discussion if this should be fal_securedownload's default behavior.

[FamousWolf]

When creating a new download record, the reference index isn't updated. The reference index records are only created if you manually (or periodically) update the reference index. So excluding it from reference index shouldn't cause a problem in most cases. I wouldn't do it through IsTableExcludedFromReferenceIndexEvent though, but by changing the fields in TCA. The table is hidden in the backend, so there's no reason for the fields to be group.

However I can imagine some people using the reference index for something, so not adding these relations to the reference index might be a breaking change for them. @joey-bolts What do you think?

[joey-bolts]

I do not see a reason why there should be a reference index in anyway here. Only if people have something customized on it. Maybe make it configurable to disable it via a setting?