[thesite] if anyones bored..

[Daniel J. Cody]

.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.