Please Dump All Old/Closed Threads From The BOARDS . . .

tak

Folks,

Holding old and closed threads is only slowing down the rate of access to the existing posts.

So why not have a procedure to dump the old or closed threads ?

Getting to my PM page today was hell - and I use Mozilla too . . .

I see nor reason to store this junk, no reason to buy surplus capacity BUT every reason to speed up users' access to their pages of interest . . .

That's how I view things anyway.

Regards,

Tak.

Boston

Your view is wrong. The storage of old posts does not have an adverse effect on overall performance.

seamus

The problem is with one of the ad servers. Old posts and threads are not causing any problems.

irlrobins

Pft! Noobs.:rolleyes:

aidan_walsh

tak wrote:

Holding old and closed threads is only slowing down the rate of access to the existing posts.

What makes you come to this conclusion? Which is utterly wrong, but it would be nice to hear your logic anyway.

FX Meister

Get rid of the ads so. Simple

MarkR

Revenue. Who needs it? :rolleyes:

RuggieBear

:d

DeVore

Yeah and burn all those books too!! History? Who needs it!

As a genuine answer... imagine you had the index of a library and that library had a 10 million books. Now that list (index) is sorted by the Most Recent Book Taken Out. So, the list starts with the book most recently taken out. Then the next most recently taken out etc etc.

Suppose that 20 books are listed per page... this list is then 500,000 pages long. However if I asked you for the last 40 books that were taken out... you'd rip the top two pages off and hand them to me. It wouldnt make it faster if that list was 10 pages long or 500,000 pages long.

Thats database indexing 101 basically.

DeV.

tak

What makes you come to this conclusion? Which is utterly wrong, but it would be nice to hear your logic anyway.


Well Aidan,

My reasoning was that all the old posts - since they are data and hence part of the base that has to be lifted each time one goes to a page where one can select either old or new posts - would slow down the rate of access to that page.

Surely a database having a bigger bulk (not all text data either) will be slower to handle ?

I was also awful vexed at the time it took me yesterday to get to one single PM.
Each time it tried to open the message it conked out.
"Done" was on the bottom of the screen but that screen was blank . . .

Okay, all my programming has been on things that have nothing to do with text data.
I do not know anything much about DBs. Just use Excel/Access as handy tools to make own customer databases, etc.
But whatever it is it was a real b***s yesterday, not the first time either.

Over to you.

Tak.

Boston

You should look up how cache's work also. A properly designed cache of recently accessed data greatly improves performance. Infact you'd be looking at 90% + data accesses being serviced via the cache.

oscarBravo

tak wrote:

My reasoning was that all the old posts - since they are data and hence part of the base that has to be lifted each time one goes to a page where one can select either old or new posts - would slow down the rate of access to that page.

Surely a database having a bigger bulk (not all text data either) will be slower to handle ?

I'd politely suggest doing some reading on why DBMS exist, never mind how they work, before making further suggestions. I've worked in the past on relational databases with several million rows per table, where it was necessary to access almost any arbitrary subset of data, on demand, with sub-second response times. The whole point of how a database works is to make its size pretty much irrelevant.

Sleepy

DeVore wrote:

Yeah and burn all those books too!! History? Who needs it!

As a genuine answer... imagine you had the index of a library and that library had a 10 million books. Now that list (index) is sorted by the Most Recent Book Taken Out. So, the list starts with the book most recently taken out. Then the next most recently taken out etc etc.

Suppose that 20 books are listed per page... this list is then 500,000 pages long. However if I asked you for the last 40 books that were taken out... you'd rip the top two pages off and hand them to me. It wouldnt make it faster if that list was 10 pages long or 500,000 pages long.

Thats database indexing 101 basically.

DeV.

Nice analogy, I may just use that next time a customer asks why I'm telling them to get their DBA team to run stats on their system database

tak

Thank ya boys.

Regards,

Tak.

gandalf

You just got served

homah_7ft

So the solution is get rid of new threads

Seth Brundle

Im confused.
What has all this database stuff got to do with the monkeys that type out the page each time a user requests it?

The Muppet

Good idea and just in case they are needed in the future we could ask redspider to store them in his file. Space may be a bit tight though

Sparky

Tak I hope you weren't involved in the persecution of innocent adverts in computer hardware FS on adverts.ie


May the boards database crimes tribunal hear a good deal about this if you were.

*shakes fist*

Stabshauptmann

while we're at it can we delete the inactive users too

irlrobins

^ Now while this might not affect performance it might free up some desired usernames....

DeVore

Has it been a year already? It seems like only last month I was answering this suggestion...


DeV

fade2black

Ah yes. Fadetoblack you thieving non posting bastard!