[thesite] if anyones bored..
Daniel J. Cody
djc at starkmedia.com
Thu Oct 25 10:55:51 CDT 2001
.jeff wrote:
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>i had tuned the blockfactor based on how fast it was
>>pulling results from the *live* DB, not the test one.
>>we shouldn't tune our test site up like that, cus it
>>will slow our live site down.
>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>>
>
> huh? it was set at a blockfactor of 100. i don't mean to call you a liar
> (and i'm not), but a blockfactor at the max doesn't much look like a tuned
> one. know what i mean? i'd be willing to bet that the results i was seeing
> with various blockfactors would hold true on w.e.o. -- 10 being the better
> number.
i didn't realize it was at 100 either. FWIW, that last time i recall
changing it(last winter) i set it to something like 65. at any rate,
i'll take the blame
> calculations handy that indicate how many rows on average that is? if not
> i'll be happy to do those calculations.
i'll work something out
.djc.
More information about the thesite
mailing list