Brandon D Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 On the view new content page, I'd rather not flip through each application tab to see if there's new content. Could you add a count of new content within each application on the tabs? So I know, for example, that blog has two new entries while reading the Forum's new content? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 We'd love to, but it would mean running a count query (using, sometimes, complicated where clauses, group bys, etc.) for each application installed - and we felt that doing that could be a big resource hog when most people are just browsing new forum posts. Searching is already resource intensive - we didn't want to compound that if it wasn't necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon D Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 So I blew 10 min playing in photoshop for nothing? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Matt. Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Thats a killer idea, Take the idea IPS, dont be foolish, give us RC 1, and work on that for RC 2/Final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beatless Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='killswitch √' date='14 May 2009 - 02:16 AM' timestamp='1242263809' post='1801504'] Thats a killer idea, Take the idea IPS, dont be foolish, give us RC 1, and work on that for RC 2/Final. Agree +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H. Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='killswitch √' date='13 May 2009 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1242263809' post='1801504'] Thats a killer idea, Take the idea IPS, dont be foolish, give us RC 1, and work on that for RC 2/Final. You already have the reason for why it's not happening. :/ It's unfortunate that queries are such commodities... this would be a great addition [not to mention all else that has been decided against for performance's sake]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon D Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 I wonder if you could do an AJAX request after the screen has been printed for those counts, and then fade em in once the screen has them? That way the active tab's content is available before any further queries are run. It wouldn't be quite as useful and it'd still be a performance hit overall, but it's at least something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan H. Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='Brandon D' date='13 May 2009 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1242265067' post='1801508'] I wonder if you could do an AJAX request after the screen has been printed for those counts, and then fade em in once the screen has them? That way the active tab's content is available before any further queries are run. It wouldn't be quite as useful and it'd still be a performance hit overall, but it's at least something. It's the concern of those extra queries being run at all, not so much the time it might take to run them consecutively [which would be very little at all]. Splitting them off into an ajax call would only be worse: then not only do you have to run those several queries, you also have to have IPB re-initialize along with everything else that a new script call involves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Exactly. We commonly get shared servers with large post tables where the server is starting to lock up because someone did a complex search. To have to re-run that query multiple times is not going to happen. Our hosting department would kill me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon D Posted May 14, 2009 Author Share Posted May 14, 2009 I know it'd still be a performance hit, hence why I said it would be in my last reply :P I'm just too lazy to switch tabs to see if there's new content or I'll forget to switch tabs entirely, sue me :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasz Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 thats why you need custom tags so that you dont need the full table search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
changeme123 Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='Brandon D' date='13 May 2009 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1242266664' post='1801517'] I know it'd still be a performance hit, hence why I said it would be in my last reply :P I'm just too lazy to switch tabs to see if there's new content or I'll forget to switch tabs entirely, sue me :P /me sues Brandon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brett B Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 Perhaps it's something that could be implemented once a better search index (i.e. Recent Activity, etc.) solution is found? Or are the two unrelated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTM Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 While I can certainly appreciate the performance this would cause regardless of how it was implemented.... I must say I like it. :) Perhaps something for 3.1 or 3.0.1 ? ;) Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HaZuuKaa Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 tommorow will be RC1 ? :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted May 14, 2009 Share Posted May 14, 2009 [quote name='aurorawx' date='13 May 2009 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1242267736' post='1801520'] Perhaps it's something that could be implemented once a better search index (i.e. Recent Activity, etc.) solution is found? Or are the two unrelated? If we were to find another way to handle the search index, then yes. We might be able to figure something out. Alternatively, the resource hit would be a lot less if you were using Sphinx. So someone could create a modification to handle this if the user is using Sphinx I suppose. [quote name='RTM' date='14 May 2009 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1242276802' post='1801556'] While I can certainly appreciate the performance this would cause regardless of how it was implemented.... I must say I like it. :) Perhaps something for 3.1 or 3.0.1 ? ;) Rob Because of the resource implications, it's doubtful we will add such functionality in the near future I'm afraid. We have customers will millions upon millions of posts and the software should work just as well for them as it does for the boards with a few hundred posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.