Pocket Queries

[Mittellegi]

My premium membership has just lapsed...I will gladly renew it if (and only if) I can store more than 20 PQs

 

As I have said before: I am happy to only run 5 per day. I am happy to have each PQ resticted to 500 results. Why can't I store more than 20?

 

Your call, Jeremy!

[+IV_Warrior]

Only 20? I remember back when we only had the 5 the we could run each day, no "extra storage".

[+Markwell]

Ah, threats. That'll get 'em.

 

It would be a nice feature. It would also be a nice feature to have the site running 100% of the time. I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problems we've had the last weekends.

 

Once everything's stable, THEN look to stuff like storing 35 PQs. If you would hapily renew your account, why not just pay double, and store 40 PQs and be able to run 10 per day?

[+PetsAllOver]

It would be a nice feature. It would also be a nice feature to have the site running 100% of the time. I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problems we've had the last weekends.

 

Once everything's stable, THEN look to stuff like storing 35 PQs. If you would hapily renew your account, why not just pay double, and store 40 PQs and be able to run 10 per day?

The two items are non-related, that's a silly argument.

 

PQs are rows in the database. Outside of the process that actually figures out which ones to run, it doesn't matter if there are 100 or 100,000,000 PQs in storage. It doesn't make the web site slower if I have 800 PQs and can still only run 5 a day.

 

Inceasing the number of PQs a user can create has nothing to do with the stability or speed of the website.

[+Stunod]

It would be a nice feature.  It would also be a nice feature to have the site running 100% of the time.  I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problems we've had the last weekends.

 

Once everything's stable, THEN look to stuff like storing 35 PQs.  If you would hapily renew your account, why not just pay double, and store 40 PQs and be able to run 10 per day?

The two items are non-related, that's a silly argument.

 

PQs are rows in the database. Outside of the process that actually figures out which ones to run, it doesn't matter if there are 100 or 100,000,000 PQs in storage. It doesn't make the web site slower if I have 800 PQs and can still only run 5 a day.

 

Inceasing the number of PQs a user can create has nothing to do with the stability or speed of the website.

Markwell was recommending that the efforts of TPTB are better utilized correcting problems to keep the site online, rather than addressing additional storage of PQ's

[+welch]

[+dogbreathcanada]

It would be a nice feature.  It would also be a nice feature to have the site running 100% of the time.  I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problems we've had the last weekends.

 

Once everything's stable, THEN look to stuff like storing 35 PQs.  If you would hapily renew your account, why not just pay double, and store 40 PQs and be able to run 10 per day?

The two items are non-related, that's a silly argument.

 

PQs are rows in the database. Outside of the process that actually figures out which ones to run, it doesn't matter if there are 100 or 100,000,000 PQs in storage. It doesn't make the web site slower if I have 800 PQs and can still only run 5 a day.

 

Inceasing the number of PQs a user can create has nothing to do with the stability or speed of the website.

The amount of storage required to store a single PQ is pretty inconsequential compared to the fact that I can upload 20 images per cache if I so desire, as a premium or regular member. Not to mention that I can store an unlimited number of caches on my watch list as a premium member. How many bookmarks can I create, and is each bookmark limited in the number of caches it caches it can hold?

 

How much database storage is a single PQ? 512 bytes? 1024 bytes? Couldn't be much more than that.

 

The 20 PQ storage limit seems meaningless. It makes little sense.

 

(The daily limit of executing no more than 5 PQs does make sense, though.)

[+PetsAllOver]

It would be a nice feature.  It would also be a nice feature to have the site running 100% of the time.  I'd prefer that they concentrate their efforts on eliminating the problems we've had the last weekends.

 

Once everything's stable, THEN look to stuff like storing 35 PQs.  If you would hapily renew your account, why not just pay double, and store 40 PQs and be able to run 10 per day?

The two items are non-related, that's a silly argument.

 

PQs are rows in the database. Outside of the process that actually figures out which ones to run, it doesn't matter if there are 100 or 100,000,000 PQs in storage. It doesn't make the web site slower if I have 800 PQs and can still only run 5 a day.

 

Inceasing the number of PQs a user can create has nothing to do with the stability or speed of the website.

Markwell was recommending that the efforts of TPTB are better utilized correcting problems to keep the site online, rather than addressing additional storage of PQ's

I don't think anone suggests otherwise, but modifying the check from

if (user.PQ.total < 20) then (add new PQ) else (error)

to

if (user.PQ.total < 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

Is hardly mimdboggling code reworking, and is a change that could be added into the next batch of bugfixes, whenever the focus realigns from "keep GC.com from crashing" to "catch up on bugs/fixes".

[+wildearth2001]

modifying the check from

if (user.PQ.total < 20) then (add new PQ) else (error)

to

if (user.PQ.total < 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

I hope they dont make the change I quoted, which would not allow us to have LESS than 50. You probably ment:

if (user.PQ.total > 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

I agree it would be nice to have more than 20 pqs stored but I really dont see it as a priority at all. I dont currently have more than 10pqs stored.

 

Markwell is right, the priority needs to be fixing the problems with the website

Edited September 26, 2005 by wildearth2001

[+dkwolf]

modifying the check from

if (user.PQ.total < 20) then (add new PQ) else (error)

to

if (user.PQ.total < 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

I hope they dont make the change I quoted, which would not allow us to have LESS than 50. You probably ment:

if (user.PQ.total > 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

I agree it would be nice to have more than 20 pqs stored but I really dont see it as a priority at all. I dont currently have more than 10pqs stored.

 

Markwell is right, the priority needs to be fixing the problems with the website

Check your work there, it was correct to begin with.

 

if (user.PQ.total < 50) then (add new PQ) else (error)

 

translates to the following in English:

 

If the number of PQ's this user has stored is less than 50, allow them to add another PQ. If the number is not less than 50, give them an error message.

 

Remember your syntax If (logic equation) THEN (condition if true) ELSE (condition if false)

Edited September 26, 2005 by dkwolf

[+Markwell]

As long as we're talking logic...

 

X= Database Administrators that work at Groundspeak

Y= Number of hours that a DBA works in a particular day

Z= Number of hours it takes to fix the current issues

A = Number of hours it takes to build in the functionality of 35 pocket queries and maintain that load on the servers.

 

If Z>=X * Y, then there's no room for A

 

If Z<X * Y AND Z+A>=X * Y, we're in better shape, but still not there.

 

The only way that it would work is if Z+A<=X * Y.

 

Otherwise, you either need to...

 

...increase Y, remembering that it's not a linear increase, as increasing Y above 40 becomes Y*1.5...

 

OR

 

...increase X, which is much more $ than the first option.

 

OR

 

..wait until Z is substantially lower than X * Y.

 

Clearer?

[+Red Eye Rebels]

Many times reading these forums I have noticed this is a collection of some of the finest minds you could find anywhere.....I think we need Markwell in the office at Groundspeak, then all of these issues would be peas and carrots. Keep writing and I'll keep reading->

[+dkwolf]

As long as we're talking logic...

 

X= Database Administrators that work at Groundspeak

Y= Number of hours that a DBA works in a particular day

Z= Number of hours it takes to fix the current issues

A = Number of hours it takes to build in the functionality of 35 pocket queries and maintain that load on the servers.

 

If Z>=X * Y, then there's no room for A

 

If Z<X * Y AND Z+A>=X * Y, we're in better shape, but still not there.

 

The only way that it would work is if Z+A<=X * Y.

 

Otherwise, you either need to...

 

...increase Y, remembering that it's not a linear increase, as increasing Y above 40 becomes Y*1.5...

 

OR

 

...increase X, which is much more $ than the first option.

 

OR

 

..wait until Z is substantially lower than X * Y.

 

Clearer?

Nicely done, although you missed holiday fixes, where it may become Y*2.0 instead of Y*1.5

[Mittellegi]

Ah, threats. That'll get 'em.

No, not a threat. My PM had already lapsed.

 

As Jeremy has now logged in after his weekend away, the lack of response suggests that I've saved myself 30 of your US dollars!

[+tozainamboku]

This has been requested before. Jeremy seems to have this as a low priority but has not ruled it out either.

[Jeremy]

Ah, threats.  That'll get 'em.

No, not a threat. My PM had already lapsed.

 

As Jeremy has now logged in after his weekend away, the lack of response suggests that I've saved myself 30 of your US dollars!

First I've seen this topic. Let me respond.

 

1. You're acting like a jerk but it may just be the custom of your country or poor English language skills, so I'll give you a break. If not, please save your $30 US for some classes in social graces.

 

2. We have some additional features for pocket queries in the works, but I was away from the computer for most of last week so I didn't want to release the new features until they were thoroughly tested. Once they are we'll be upping the number of PQs due to these new features.

 

3. However, read #1 and keep your money.

[Mittellegi]

...so I didn't want to release the new features until they were thoroughly tested. Once they are we'll be upping the number of PQs due to these new features...

Please can current PMs update us on the status of these new features.