This prompted me to check my indexing and it was mostly OK, but I found that
adding an index on RateUsername improves the speed of this query by a factor of
about 4. I think we're back to pretty much OK now.
If it gets bad, I'll ask for help with my SQL.
--
Phil Holmes
----- Original Message -----
From: Ramana Kumar
To: Trevor Daniels
Cc: Janek Warchol ; Devel ; Phil Holmes ; LilyPond User Group
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Regression test rater
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
