I don't get this ita. What's taking up 262MB of space if not the database?
I will check with support.
You always think harder is better. Maybe next time I patrol, I should carry bricks and use a stake made out of butter.
Buffy ,'The Killer In Me'
Buffistas Building a Better Board
Do you have problems, concerns or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 9:46:42 am PST #3181 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Jon B. - Feb 24, 2003 9:52:28 am PST #3182 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
since the database will still have the same number of records, with the overhead of having more tables that it will still drag it down.
So the archives couldn't live in a completely separate database from the active threads?
Oh, wait, I get it - It would still have to be connected to the user table, and maybe others. Is that it?
§ ita § - Feb 24, 2003 9:55:37 am PST #3183 of 10000
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
It would still have to be connected to the user table, and maybe others. Is that it?
Yupped. The sucking options take care of that, since info is embedded. But the separate database would still be quasi-live, and reflecting stuff like a user changing their tagline, etc.
Michele T. - Feb 24, 2003 9:57:32 am PST #3184 of 10000
with a gleam in my eye, and an almost airtight alibi
Can we set the search default to be subscribed threads? Or is that less usable, you think?
DXMachina - Feb 24, 2003 9:57:33 am PST #3185 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Yupped. The sucking options take care of that, since info is embedded. But the separate database would still be quasi-live, and reflecting stuff like a user changing their tagline, etc.
Right. It would be like the Attic at WX. Rats, I'd hate to lose that functionality. Searching for something thread by thread is a huge pain.
DXMachina - Feb 24, 2003 9:59:57 am PST #3186 of 10000
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
Can we set the search default to be subscribed threads? Or is that less usable, you think?
I'm still subscribed to every Natter thread. Just never bothered to unsubscribe because the fall to the bottom of the list anyway. I can't be the only one who does that.
Jon B. - Feb 24, 2003 10:03:03 am PST #3187 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
The sucking options take care of that, since info is embedded.
Damn straight! :)
I'd hate to lose that functionality.
It would be annoying, but it seems like a small price to pay.
P.M. Marc - Feb 24, 2003 10:05:00 am PST #3188 of 10000
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
I still support the idea of sticking the archived threads off the main site.
What about an ashes board? Same basic structure and user table, but all the threads closed (of course).
I'm still on coffee cup one. This might not make much sense.
But, so long as we hosted it elsewhere, you could still search it like DX wants to be able to do, and it wouldn't drag the main site down.
Jon B. - Feb 24, 2003 10:10:53 am PST #3189 of 10000
A turkey in every toilet -- only in America!
I still support the idea of sticking the archived threads off the main site.
As html or as a database?
What about an ashes board? Same basic structure and user table, but all the threads closed (of course).
How would the user table stay updated? Every time a new closed thread was ported, an update to the archives user table would be required.
PaulJ - Feb 24, 2003 10:30:08 am PST #3190 of 10000
What about putting the old threads somewhere else as static HTML files, and index them using htDig or similar kinds of search engines? This way they would still be searchable, though it would be cumbersome to have one search for live threads and another one for old ones.