Remember back in the day when the 'new post' and 'new comment' counters on the front page would often be wrong? Those were the good old days! Since the last update (god when was that? over a year ago...) this seems to have been ironed out (has anyone had this problem in recent memory?)
Anyway, I am thinking of moving back to the old way of doing it. This would have the advantage of speeding up front page load times, which is becoming a big problem (any disagreements?) Hopefully my implementation this time around will not be error prone.
Basically, the system used to calculate the 'new' values for each subscriber at post time, and then store this number in the database so the system was ready to build your front page without doing much calculating. In the present system these values are calculated fresh each time you load the front page. The present way has the advantage of not getting out of sync with reality, but the disadvantage of not scaling. I didn't think we'd hit the ceiling so fast though (no doubt coding style and language choice also play big roles here.)
New post and comment indicators have been largely glitch-free. Occasionally I discover a post or comment I didn't get notice of when someone adds to a thread. The redo sounds OK to me. One thing you and I discussed that others may not know: the slow front page loading only happens when you're logged in. People checking out the site from outside still get quick loads on that page. But from what you've told me the site is doing an incredible amount of calculation every time a tree-er loads the front page.
If it's a question of sacrificing some of the reliability of 'new post' and 'new comment' flags for speed, I'd choose speed right now. But it sounds like that reliability issue is pretty much cleared up - in which case, even more so yes yes yes to speed of loading front page!
I'm probably slowing things down with incessant ego-surfing of my log files. It's interesting to see where people come from, and to which pages the go once they arrive.
By the way, here's something I'm wondering about. One line of the log lists no URL. I assume that's incremented when people just type in the URL directly or there is otherswise no referring URL. I suppose that links which launch new windows may fall into that category.
Anyway, that's the most popular entry point, constituting about 1/3 of all hits.
That line also includes search engine bots (which are listed by name under "useragent") and visitors who come to the page via bookmark (and other things, I'm sure).
testing...
|
Anyway, I am thinking of moving back to the old way of doing it. This would have the advantage of speeding up front page load times, which is becoming a big problem (any disagreements?) Hopefully my implementation this time around will not be error prone.
Basically, the system used to calculate the 'new' values for each subscriber at post time, and then store this number in the database so the system was ready to build your front page without doing much calculating. In the present system these values are calculated fresh each time you load the front page. The present way has the advantage of not getting out of sync with reality, but the disadvantage of not scaling. I didn't think we'd hit the ceiling so fast though (no doubt coding style and language choice also play big roles here.)
- jim 2-19-2004 1:07 am
New post and comment indicators have been largely glitch-free. Occasionally I discover a post or comment I didn't get notice of when someone adds to a thread. The redo sounds OK to me. One thing you and I discussed that others may not know: the slow front page loading only happens when you're logged in. People checking out the site from outside still get quick loads on that page. But from what you've told me the site is doing an incredible amount of calculation every time a tree-er loads the front page.
- tom moody 2-19-2004 1:31 am [add a comment]
If it's a question of sacrificing some of the reliability of 'new post' and 'new comment' flags for speed, I'd choose speed right now. But it sounds like that reliability issue is pretty much cleared up - in which case, even more so yes yes yes to speed of loading front page!
- sally mckay 2-19-2004 10:01 am [add a comment]
I'm probably slowing things down with incessant ego-surfing of my log files. It's interesting to see where people come from, and to which pages the go once they arrive.
By the way, here's something I'm wondering about. One line of the log lists no URL. I assume that's incremented when people just type in the URL directly or there is otherswise no referring URL. I suppose that links which launch new windows may fall into that category.
Anyway, that's the most popular entry point, constituting about 1/3 of all hits.
- mark 2-19-2004 11:19 am [add a comment]
That line also includes search engine bots (which are listed by name under "useragent") and visitors who come to the page via bookmark (and other things, I'm sure).
- tom moody 2-19-2004 11:25 am [add a comment]
testing...
- jim 2-21-2004 9:13 pm [add a comment]