Also if you want to give more details about your database, e.g., which SQL implementation, how the tables are organised, and the code you tried, maybe someone here can improve it. On Jul 10, 2012 4:54 PM, "Trevor Daniels" <t.dani...@treda.co.uk> wrote:
> > Phil Holmes wrote Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:03 PM > > > Kind-of fixed. The way the files are presented is aimed at ensuring > no-one > > rates a regtest more than once, and that they get the least-rated files > > presented to them in a random order. The only way I seem to be able to > get > > this to work is with nested SQL statements, and this is quite slow. The > > alternative would be to make it simpler, so that users simply get files > > which they haven't rated, with no ordering apart from that. However, the > > downside of this is that we may get lots of files with 4 ratings, but > some > > remain with only 1 until we've done the lot. Let me know what you'd > prefer, > > fellow raters. > > I'm getting load times of just less than 10 sec fairly > consistently. This seems quite acceptable. > > Trevor > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
