Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 5]
Discussion
simonrockman said:
Jader1973 said:
Why can’t I put broken drinking glasses in my glass recycling bin?
Bottles and jars only, and no other type of glass allowed.
We have an old fashioned milkman. Empty bottles are washed and reused. He also does orange juice. Bottles and jars only, and no other type of glass allowed.
HTP99 said:
coppernorks said:
Amazed you have a glass recycling bin.
Our council will have no truck with uplifting glass, you have to schlep up to the communal bottle bank with your empties.
Our glass goes into the normal recycling bin along with the cardboard, plastic and tins.Our council will have no truck with uplifting glass, you have to schlep up to the communal bottle bank with your empties.
So a new bin for everyone.
No return scheme here - other states have them though. My SIL lives on the border so her kids collect empties and they duck over to NSW to cash them in. They have fancy machines that read the labels apparently.
bmwmike said:
Clockwork Cupcake said:
bmwmike said:
I'd assumed the 500 limit was an arbitrary decision for archiving or just not letting discussions get stupidly large. If there was no limit, discussions would go on forever gradually losing relevance/connection to the original post topic.
I have always assumed that it was arbitrary too. Although the rest of your post makes no sense as breaking a long thread into chunks makes no difference on the direction the discussion takes. As I said earlier, I think it is either a database issue or a performance issue. Or both. Perhaps very big threads keep getting re-indexed which increases the load on the database server(s), and chunking it means the archived chunks don't get re-indexed.
Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 25th June 11:40
Variables or DB field sizes limitations makes no sense whatsoever.
UI representation of the page numbers *may* have some bearing perhaps, as in, in how it gets displayed, or represented in the underlying JS. Dare I say considering how DIY some of the bits of this forum are, perhaps the whole 500 pages are stored in a fixed length array that just happens to have been picked at 500 elements and stuck ever since.
The UI doesn't load everything for the thread in one go. it's a website. The address is basically a function call to the asp page with a list of parameters. One of which is the thread ID, one of which is the index of the first post to display. There are no pages in the database, that is dictated by the user's preferences and will be a parameter in the query that pulls the 'page' content from the database.
As I said earlier, change the 'i' value in the URL, add one to it and suddenly that 'page' you are on starts one post later.
The website is not loading the whole thread, storing it in memory somewhere on the server or even client side and then giving you a 'page' from an array.
A 'page' is sent to the client based on what parameters were passed to the post.asp page, it returns 20, 40, 60 or 80 posts starting from the index that's passed in, and renders them as a page. It will deduce what page numbers to display as links at the top based on the index of the top post and the number of posts per page the user has configured.
However long the thread is, at most it's querying and returning 80 posts.
In terms of indexing and such, there are what, barely 2,000,000 threads on the whole of PH, that's chicken feed in terms of actual database systems, and any arbitrary limit imposed early in the system's life could be ignored now by sheer brute force of processing power and so on. Even if there are on average 1,000 posts per thread that's really not a 'lot' in database terms.
Realistically in indexing terms, fewer threads would be better. longer running threads would lead to a smaller index
The simplest verification either way, has any thread ever had more than 10,000 posts in it? If it's an arbitrary limit (remember, there are no 'pages' as we see them in the database) of 500 'pages', there would be no problem if one thread had 10,001 posts in it, the system would still work fine, and the admins wouldn't have to break threads in to a second volume before they hit the deadly 501 page mark.
I personally think it's more likely to be a silly limit of one of the Reply, Quote, or Submit etc. functions that only copes with up to 4 characters for the for some stupid reason, so once a thread is over 9999 posts, one of those behaviours breaks.
SturdyHSV said:
I'm not sure I agree with either of you on that
The UI doesn't load everything for the thread in one go. it's a website. The address is basically a function call to the asp page with a list of parameters. One of which is the thread ID, one of which is the index of the first post to display. There are no pages in the database, that is dictated by the user's preferences and will be a parameter in the query that pulls the 'page' content from the database.
As I said earlier, change the 'i' value in the URL, add one to it and suddenly that 'page' you are on starts one post later.
The website is not loading the whole thread, storing it in memory somewhere on the server or even client side and then giving you a 'page' from an array.
A 'page' is sent to the client based on what parameters were passed to the post.asp page, it returns 20, 40, 60 or 80 posts starting from the index that's passed in, and renders them as a page. It will deduce what page numbers to display as links at the top based on the index of the top post and the number of posts per page the user has configured.
However long the thread is, at most it's querying and returning 80 posts.
In terms of indexing and such, there are what, barely 2,000,000 threads on the whole of PH, that's chicken feed in terms of actual database systems, and any arbitrary limit imposed early in the system's life could be ignored now by sheer brute force of processing power and so on. Even if there are on average 1,000 posts per thread that's really not a 'lot' in database terms.
Realistically in indexing terms, fewer threads would be better. longer running threads would lead to a smaller index
The simplest verification either way, has any thread ever had more than 10,000 posts in it? If it's an arbitrary limit (remember, there are no 'pages' as we see them in the database) of 500 'pages', there would be no problem if one thread had 10,001 posts in it, the system would still work fine, and the admins wouldn't have to break threads in to a second volume before they hit the deadly 501 page mark.
I personally think it's more likely to be a silly limit of one of the Reply, Quote, or Submit etc. functions that only copes with up to 4 characters for the for some stupid reason, so once a thread is over 9999 posts, one of those behaviours breaks.
Really depends on the sql windowing function used to retrieve the page of posts. Can get really slow if implemented badly as the volume grows, which it probably is. I have seen a mod say at some point that is is purely about bad performance.The UI doesn't load everything for the thread in one go. it's a website. The address is basically a function call to the asp page with a list of parameters. One of which is the thread ID, one of which is the index of the first post to display. There are no pages in the database, that is dictated by the user's preferences and will be a parameter in the query that pulls the 'page' content from the database.
As I said earlier, change the 'i' value in the URL, add one to it and suddenly that 'page' you are on starts one post later.
The website is not loading the whole thread, storing it in memory somewhere on the server or even client side and then giving you a 'page' from an array.
A 'page' is sent to the client based on what parameters were passed to the post.asp page, it returns 20, 40, 60 or 80 posts starting from the index that's passed in, and renders them as a page. It will deduce what page numbers to display as links at the top based on the index of the top post and the number of posts per page the user has configured.
However long the thread is, at most it's querying and returning 80 posts.
In terms of indexing and such, there are what, barely 2,000,000 threads on the whole of PH, that's chicken feed in terms of actual database systems, and any arbitrary limit imposed early in the system's life could be ignored now by sheer brute force of processing power and so on. Even if there are on average 1,000 posts per thread that's really not a 'lot' in database terms.
Realistically in indexing terms, fewer threads would be better. longer running threads would lead to a smaller index
The simplest verification either way, has any thread ever had more than 10,000 posts in it? If it's an arbitrary limit (remember, there are no 'pages' as we see them in the database) of 500 'pages', there would be no problem if one thread had 10,001 posts in it, the system would still work fine, and the admins wouldn't have to break threads in to a second volume before they hit the deadly 501 page mark.
I personally think it's more likely to be a silly limit of one of the Reply, Quote, or Submit etc. functions that only copes with up to 4 characters for the for some stupid reason, so once a thread is over 9999 posts, one of those behaviours breaks.
glenrobbo said:
Doofus said:
coppernorks said:
Amazed you have a glass recycling bin.
Our council will have no truck with uplifting glass, you have to schlep up to the communal bottle bank with your empties.
If we had to do that I'd have to buy a Transit.Our council will have no truck with uplifting glass, you have to schlep up to the communal bottle bank with your empties.
Whatever happened to the old bottle deposit return scheme years ago, where you were refunded for each bottle returned to the retailer?Surely it would be beneficial, less wasteful, and cut out a lot of use of plastic bottles in these environmentally challenged modern times?
It's not a simple thing to do though and has some complex consequences. For example the financing of local authority waste services takes into account the value of key recyclable materials so if everyone started taking their empty plastic bottles and glass to the supermarket to get a cash voucher, local authorities would then start to see a drop in their revenues leading to higher council tax charges.
Plus, the deposit is added to the product. Take up on a deposit return scheme will never be total so measures have to be put in place to make sure that the companies selling those products don't just keep the deposit people have paid but invest it in other means of material recovery.
snowandrocks said:
V8covin said:
What do Royal mail delivery staff do when they need the loo while on their rounds ?
I spotted our postie having a pee in a passing place a few months back - we are in the middle of nowhere though so maybe not quite as acceptable if he had an urban round! HappyMidget said:
Really depends on the sql windowing function used to retrieve the page of posts. Can get really slow if implemented badly as the volume grows, which it probably is. I have seen a mod say at some point that is is purely about bad performance.
I recall a post somewhere that explained the issue and confirmed that it's just too big a change to make "at the moment", though I think it was years ago. droopsnoot said:
HappyMidget said:
Really depends on the sql windowing function used to retrieve the page of posts. Can get really slow if implemented badly as the volume grows, which it probably is. I have seen a mod say at some point that is is purely about bad performance.
I recall a post somewhere that explained the issue and confirmed that it's just too big a change to make "at the moment", though I think it was years ago. 
I can certainly see how if it's indexed badly it could become a right cludge adding additional posts to a thread, especially what is effectively an 'old' one (which you'd have to assume a 10000 post thread would be).
I've seen a poorly chosen clustered index for an ANPR records table make an absolute hash of things. Even with only a couple of hundred cameras, the daily 'archive' (which itself was only implemented as the 'live' system got too slow to store much more than a day's worth and still perform acceptably) would take 9 hours to complete, and naturally was growing in duration every day
SturdyHSV said:
Not sure how it'd be a windowing function used as part of the retrieve, but if a mod says it's about performance, then fair enough, not much more to try and figure out
I can certainly see how if it's indexed badly it could become a right cludge adding additional posts to a thread, especially what is effectively an 'old' one (which you'd have to assume a 10000 post thread would be).
I've seen a poorly chosen clustered index for an ANPR records table make an absolute hash of things. Even with only a couple of hundred cameras, the daily 'archive' (which itself was only implemented as the 'live' system got too slow to store much more than a day's worth and still perform acceptably) would take 9 hours to complete, and naturally was growing in duration every day
Don't get me started on bad indexing I can certainly see how if it's indexed badly it could become a right cludge adding additional posts to a thread, especially what is effectively an 'old' one (which you'd have to assume a 10000 post thread would be).
I've seen a poorly chosen clustered index for an ANPR records table make an absolute hash of things. Even with only a couple of hundred cameras, the daily 'archive' (which itself was only implemented as the 'live' system got too slow to store much more than a day's worth and still perform acceptably) would take 9 hours to complete, and naturally was growing in duration every day
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/wiki/contents...
As it needs to do a table scan even using offset and limit, it gets slower the further along you get.
I am guessing someone possibly hardcoded a mapping table to users post preferences and it runs out @ 10000 posts. Just a wild stab in the dark.
Doofus said:
Doofus said:
What was the name of that burger joint in Reading back in the 80s that burned down and moved to the end of the bridge at Oxford station?
I think it must have been Brett's, in case anyone cares. EDIT - I thought it was the Oxford one that burned down.
Anyway I haven’t been back to Oxford much since the mid-80s but I had a drink a while back with a mate who still lives there who said there were rumours that it was being resuscitated in Witney, of all places, although I don’t know many people in Oxford who’d make 25 mile round trip for a burger, however good it was.
Edited by psi310398 on Tuesday 29th June 16:08
psi310398 said:
Doofus said:
Doofus said:
What was the name of that burger joint in Reading back in the 80s that burned down and moved to the end of the bridge at Oxford station?
I think it must have been Brett's, in case anyone cares. EDIT - I thought it was the Oxford one that burned down.
Anyway I haven’t been back to Oxford much since the mid-80s but I had a drink a while back with a mate who still lives there who said there were rumours that it was being resuscitated in Witney, of all places, although I don’t know many people in Oxford who’d make 25 mile round trip for a burger, however good it was.
Edited by psi310398 on Tuesday 29th June 16:08
), but when it closed we'd drive to Oxford instead.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff