On 7/15/05, Colm MacCarthaigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 01:23:29AM -0500, Parin Shah wrote: > > - we need to maintain a counter for url in this case which would > > decide the priority of the url. But mainting this counter should be a > > low overhead operation, I believe. > > Is a counter strictly speaking the right approach? Why not a time of > last access? > > I havn't run a statistical analysis but based on my logs the likelyhood > of a url being accessed is very highly correlated to how recently it has > been accessed before. A truly popular page will always have been > accessed recently, a page that is becoming popular (and therefore very > likely to get future hits) will have been accessed recently and a page > who's popularity is rapidly diminishing will not have been accessed > recently. >
Last Access Time is definetaly better solution when compared to counter mechanism. Would like to know other ppl's opinion too. Thanks, Parin.
