Re: [WebDNA] Not even sure what to ask for help on. . . :(
This WebDNA talk-list message is from 2008
It keeps the original formatting.
numero = 101642
interpreted = N
texte = Just a question: do you have real bandwidth with a full 6Mbps or do you just have access to a shared network on which you can pump up to 6Mbps? also, did you consider the uploading stream? downloading at 5.5Mbps easily means 500Kbps upstream... chris On Dec 16, 2008, at 4:46, David Bastedo wrote: > Absolutely. So let me explain a bit more. . . > > > 1. Under low load, everything has been working fine. > 2. I have two pages where I expected a slower load time as a result of > the searchs, what I am experiencing though.. . 30 plus seconds to > load the framepage with one search, then 30 seconds each to load two > more Iframe pages. > > There are numerous searches and lookups, but when you go to a load > time like that from a normal load time . . . I was developing on the > same server, so it was under normal load. > > 3. My databases are in ram and they have a few records, but nothing I > would say, exceptional nothing with 100,000's of records. > 4. the last site ran most of the same code, and on peak periods, I > have had to tweak the server to max out the load and connections - but > those were pretty extreme conditions and I basically offloaded images > and a key page. > 5. My last version, I offloaded all the graphics to another server. On > this version, I have offloaded most - menu and footer to another > server and then have integrated a flickr api into pages, so those > images are coming off flicker, but I built a cms, so those images - > thumbs etc. are on the main server and the store. > > 7. For example, loading my store right now, just took several seconds, > and on thursday it was instantaneous. Currently, a category search > with two products is taking several seconds to load and I am sure I > would have noticed that:) > 8. I am looking at my total bandwidth for the day, and it peaked at > 5.5 briefly. It's running just over 3mbs right now > > to update on Ken's note > > the entire site is in Iframes. All big chunks of code are split up > onto individual pages. > I commit to db. only when necessary > My pages all have .html extension > > my fickr api was getting 1.1 qps > > the "key" pages in question cannot be static, the rest I was > planning on doing > > apache is running 2.3 qps right now, but was higher earlier > > now, when you say a permenant db, are you suggesting that I compile > all of my results from the searches and lookup's into one database. . > . . beforehand . . . i did that on the last version for a bunch of > things and found it to be such a pain in the ass. I wrote a routine to > write a new db everytime I updated . . . I am not sure I CAN do that > for parts of the site as one is update constantly > > > A search for two items in the store is taking seconds - and it is in > iframes as well > > I am currently going through and replacing lookip's with searches > where possible, if there is more than 2-3, I think I can combine, I > will > > I cache templates, but have changed the value as per your suggestion > Safe > > as for the safe write - how would this affect the stability of my > databases? as I have had no problems with them in 3+ years of this > site and don't want to start > > I want to think it is bandwidth, as I think that would be an easier > solution for me, but, if I haven't hit that magic number of 6mbs, even > though I have been close, can it be the bandwidth. . . . > > my other "real" issue, is that I haven't annouced the site yet. When I > do, I will be telling a lot of people. . . so my problems get worse > from here. a "slight" improvement under the current load, won't really > satisfy my expectations for the peak . . . as well, this is the > beginning of a year plus endeavour, of which, if all goes right, I'll > be increasing traffic, not decreasing. I am quite confident, that I > can get a tap big enough to satisfy and that my ISP has that > capability > > what I can't figure out, is how to get this site moving fast enough > to keep up. I think I might have to break down the pieces i Have > grouped together on pages, into individual pages. > > Since I Started writing this an hour ago and checking various things, > the traffic has been cut in half, and now looks like this: > > 1.1 requests/sec - 14.2 kB/second - 12.9 kB/request > 149 requests currently being processed, 10 idle workers > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW_W___WW______................................. > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > .. > > > > and in my experience, on my old site, when it looked liket his I was > still ok and the only thing I did differently, was to use tables to > compile the all the results for my main search instead of writing to a > db, which I used to do exclusively. > > D. > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Rob
wrote: >> Ok.. sorry, but I gotta be brutally honest here... its just me, and >> nothing >> personal. I just want to try to understand the problem.... From your >> previous email you said: >> >> "Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except the >> site has now slowed to a crawl." >> >> Which to me means that under normal conditions, low load, your >> lookups are >> working fine, and everything functions normally. If it was a >> problem in the >> coding, you would also see it in low load conditions as well... >> yes/no?....Lookups/searches, using WebDNA are normally extremely >> fast. Way >> faster then the available bandwidth as they are usually done in >> RAM, unless >> your pulling them via SQL or using an old 386/system 6 processor. >> Pulling >> from RAM means it doesn't have to read from disk, and I wouldn't >> use SQL >> unless I had several thousand records anyway. >> >> IMHO, I still think it's bandwidth. On a 6 mb/sec line you might >> max out, >> and start grinding to a halt at about 23 connections(avg 256kbs per >> connection) pulling streaming all at once. >> >> I currently have to split out loads for the same reason. I park all >> intensive loads on a high bandwidth network, and use our servers, >> on a >> completely separate network, to just serve out the code. It also >> has the >> advantage of differentiating between a coding/bandwidth problem. I >> actually >> purchase space on the backbone for the same reason for about $3.00- >> $4.00 per >> month/site from directnic. >> >> Just my 2 cents.... >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 15-Dec-08, at 7:00 PM, David Bastedo wrote: >> >>> I stream through the same pipe and can handle up to 6mb a second - >>> which I have come close to, but not quite attained. The max I have >>> hit >>> in the last week is 5.5. The a/v is streaming fine - though that >>> server is also maxed out and is being updated and reconfigured. That >>> has been rectified temporarily - there is a memory leak in Flash Com >>> Server, though my connection can handle several hundred streaming >>> conncetions. >>> >>> I did do a test and am spending my night doing more. One culpret is >>> the looksups in that search. Doing a nested search is way faster. I >>> hope to go through all the major chunks and see what I can >>> streamline. >>> >>> I'll post some results in a few hours if that helps of side by side >>> tests, which is pretty well what I need to do. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Rob wrote: >>>> >>>> Sounds more like a bandwidth problem then a WebDNA problem.... >>>> What kind >>>> of >>>> line is this on? >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15-Dec-08, at 2:59 PM, David Bastedo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >>>>> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except >>>>> the >>>>> site has now slowed to a crawl. >>>>> >>>>> I have many images on a seperate server, I have just added 6gb >>>>> to the >>>>> server - emrgency like, hoping it will help - it has - >>>>> marginally - >>>>> and now I am in the process of adding a third server - I also >>>>> have one >>>>> for streaming - and am planning on moving everything to MySQL - I >>>>> think - though it would not be my preference. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway before I can even contemplate that - doing that will take a >>>>> fair bit of time - I need to get the current site as fast as >>>>> possible, >>>>> to buy me some time to do this new update. >>>>> >>>>> I guess my biggest question is on tables. I am using tables on >>>>> this >>>>> site and I think that this may be the biggest issue. I need to >>>>> do a >>>>> lot of sorting and it "seemed" like the best, most convinient >>>>> way to >>>>> do it, though now I am wondering if this has caused way more >>>>> problems >>>>> that it has solved. >>>>> >>>>> Is it better to write to a temp db and then sort those results, >>>>> if I >>>>> have to, rather than a table: >>>>> >>>>> Here is a sample piece of code. (I am making custom music >>>>> playlists BTW) >>>>> >>>>> [table >>>>> >>>>> name=MyPlayListData&fields=PlayListItemID,PlayListID,Sequence,ConcertID,FLV_FileName,UserID,DateCreated,LastUpdate,FLV_Length,PlayListName,PlayListDescription,AlbumID,HSPSongID,PlayListID,PlayListDescription,UserID,PlayListType,DateCreated,timeTotal,MySongName,AlbumName,releaseDate,rating,MyRating][/table] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Search >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> aaa >>>>> .db >>>>> &gePlayListIDdata >>>>> = >>>>> 0 >>>>> &eqAlbumIDdata >>>>> =303&albumIDtype=num&[SO]sort=1&[SO]dir=[SB]&[SO]Type=num] >>>>> [founditems] >>>>> [replace >>>>> >>>>> table >>>>> = >>>>> MyPlayListData >>>>> &eqPlayListIDdatarq >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&PlayListIDtype >>>>> = >>>>> num >>>>> &eqUserIDdatarq >>>>> =[UserID]&UserIDtype=num&eqHSPSongIDdatarq=[HSPSongID]&append=T] >>>>> [!] >>>>> [/!]PlayListItemID=[PlayListItemID][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListID=[PlayListID][!] >>>>> [/!]&Sequence=[Sequence][!] >>>>> [/!]&ConcertID=[ConcertID][!] >>>>> [/!]&FLV_FileName=[FLV_FileName][!] >>>>> [/!]&UserID=[UserID][!] >>>>> [/!]&DateCreated=[DateCreated][!] >>>>> [/!]&LastUpdate=[LastUpdate][!] >>>>> [/!]&FLV_Length=[FLV_Length][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListName=[PlayListName][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[PlayListDescription][!] >>>>> [/!]&AlbumID=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=AlbumID][!] >>>>> [/!]&HSPSongID=[HSPSongID][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListName=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListName][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListDescription][!] >>>>> [/!]&UserID=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=UserID] >>>>> [!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListType=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListType][!] >>>>> [/!]&DateCreated=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=DateCreated][!] >>>>> [/!]&rating=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=rating]&MyRating=[search >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> xxx.db&eqStoryIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&eqUserIDdatarq=[GETCOOKIE >>>>> name=xxx]][founditems][TheRating][/founditems][/search][/replace] >>>>> >>>>> [/founditems] >>>>> [/search] >>>>> >>>>> -> then I have to do two more seraches. One for the results and >>>>> one >>>>> for next/prev >>>>> >>>>> [search >>>>> >>>>> table >>>>> = >>>>> MyPlayListData >>>>> &gePlayListIDData >>>>> = >>>>> 0 >>>>> &eqalbumIDdatarq >>>>> = >>>>> 303 >>>>> &PlayListIDsumm >>>>> = >>>>> T >>>>> &[SB >>>>> ]sort=1&[SB]sdir=[SO]&[SB]type=[SB_type]&startAt=[startat]&max=10] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know I can make this code more streamlined, but I am not sure >>>>> if it >>>>> is the tables that are a problem. >>>>> >>>>> Without a load, these pages work great, but with the increased >>>>> traffic, it now takes - well WAY too long to load a page. >>>>> Anyway, I am >>>>> going through and make my code thinner, as it were - I can get >>>>> rid of >>>>> a bunch of the lookups above and replace with another search, >>>>> but I am >>>>> wondering if I should replace all the tables in the site with a >>>>> temp >>>>> .db. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? or advice? Thanks in advance. >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> David Bastedo >>>>> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >>>>> http://www.10plus1.com >>>>> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>>>> the mailing list . >>>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>>>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>>>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>>> the mailing list . >>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Bastedo >>> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >>> http://www.10plus1.com >>> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>> the mailing list . >>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >> > > > > -- > David Bastedo > Ten Plus One Communications Inc. > http://www.10plus1.com > 416.603.2223 ext.1 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
Associated Messages, from the most recent to the oldest:
Just a question: do you have real bandwidth with a full 6Mbps or do you just have access to a shared network on which you can pump up to 6Mbps? also, did you consider the uploading stream? downloading at 5.5Mbps easily means 500Kbps upstream... chris On Dec 16, 2008, at 4:46, David Bastedo wrote: > Absolutely. So let me explain a bit more. . . > > > 1. Under low load, everything has been working fine. > 2. I have two pages where I expected a slower load time as a result of > the searchs, what I am experiencing though.. . 30 plus seconds to > load the framepage with one search, then 30 seconds each to load two > more Iframe pages. > > There are numerous searches and lookups, but when you go to a load > time like that from a normal load time . . . I was developing on the > same server, so it was under normal load. > > 3. My databases are in ram and they have a few records, but nothing I > would say, exceptional nothing with 100,000's of records. > 4. the last site ran most of the same code, and on peak periods, I > have had to tweak the server to max out the load and connections - but > those were pretty extreme conditions and I basically offloaded images > and a key page. > 5. My last version, I offloaded all the graphics to another server. On > this version, I have offloaded most - menu and footer to another > server and then have integrated a flickr api into pages, so those > images are coming off flicker, but I built a cms, so those images - > thumbs etc. are on the main server and the store. > > 7. For example, loading my store right now, just took several seconds, > and on thursday it was instantaneous. Currently, a category search > with two products is taking several seconds to load and I am sure I > would have noticed that:) > 8. I am looking at my total bandwidth for the day, and it peaked at > 5.5 briefly. It's running just over 3mbs right now > > to update on Ken's note > > the entire site is in Iframes. All big chunks of code are split up > onto individual pages. > I commit to db. only when necessary > My pages all have .html extension > > my fickr api was getting 1.1 qps > > the "key" pages in question cannot be static, the rest I was > planning on doing > > apache is running 2.3 qps right now, but was higher earlier > > now, when you say a permenant db, are you suggesting that I compile > all of my results from the searches and lookup's into one database. . > . . beforehand . . . i did that on the last version for a bunch of > things and found it to be such a pain in the ass. I wrote a routine to > write a new db everytime I updated . . . I am not sure I CAN do that > for parts of the site as one is update constantly > > > A search for two items in the store is taking seconds - and it is in > iframes as well > > I am currently going through and replacing lookip's with searches > where possible, if there is more than 2-3, I think I can combine, I > will > > I cache templates, but have changed the value as per your suggestion > Safe > > as for the safe write - how would this affect the stability of my > databases? as I have had no problems with them in 3+ years of this > site and don't want to start > > I want to think it is bandwidth, as I think that would be an easier > solution for me, but, if I haven't hit that magic number of 6mbs, even > though I have been close, can it be the bandwidth. . . . > > my other "real" issue, is that I haven't annouced the site yet. When I > do, I will be telling a lot of people. . . so my problems get worse > from here. a "slight" improvement under the current load, won't really > satisfy my expectations for the peak . . . as well, this is the > beginning of a year plus endeavour, of which, if all goes right, I'll > be increasing traffic, not decreasing. I am quite confident, that I > can get a tap big enough to satisfy and that my ISP has that > capability > > what I can't figure out, is how to get this site moving fast enough > to keep up. I think I might have to break down the pieces i Have > grouped together on pages, into individual pages. > > Since I Started writing this an hour ago and checking various things, > the traffic has been cut in half, and now looks like this: > > 1.1 requests/sec - 14.2 kB/second - 12.9 kB/request > 149 requests currently being processed, 10 idle workers > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW > WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW_W___WW______................................. > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > ................................................................ > .. > > > > and in my experience, on my old site, when it looked liket his I was > still ok and the only thing I did differently, was to use tables to > compile the all the results for my main search instead of writing to a > db, which I used to do exclusively. > > D. > > > > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Rob wrote: >> Ok.. sorry, but I gotta be brutally honest here... its just me, and >> nothing >> personal. I just want to try to understand the problem.... From your >> previous email you said: >> >> "Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except the >> site has now slowed to a crawl." >> >> Which to me means that under normal conditions, low load, your >> lookups are >> working fine, and everything functions normally. If it was a >> problem in the >> coding, you would also see it in low load conditions as well... >> yes/no?....Lookups/searches, using WebDNA are normally extremely >> fast. Way >> faster then the available bandwidth as they are usually done in >> RAM, unless >> your pulling them via SQL or using an old 386/system 6 processor. >> Pulling >> from RAM means it doesn't have to read from disk, and I wouldn't >> use SQL >> unless I had several thousand records anyway. >> >> IMHO, I still think it's bandwidth. On a 6 mb/sec line you might >> max out, >> and start grinding to a halt at about 23 connections(avg 256kbs per >> connection) pulling streaming all at once. >> >> I currently have to split out loads for the same reason. I park all >> intensive loads on a high bandwidth network, and use our servers, >> on a >> completely separate network, to just serve out the code. It also >> has the >> advantage of differentiating between a coding/bandwidth problem. I >> actually >> purchase space on the backbone for the same reason for about $3.00- >> $4.00 per >> month/site from directnic. >> >> Just my 2 cents.... >> >> Rob >> >> >> On 15-Dec-08, at 7:00 PM, David Bastedo wrote: >> >>> I stream through the same pipe and can handle up to 6mb a second - >>> which I have come close to, but not quite attained. The max I have >>> hit >>> in the last week is 5.5. The a/v is streaming fine - though that >>> server is also maxed out and is being updated and reconfigured. That >>> has been rectified temporarily - there is a memory leak in Flash Com >>> Server, though my connection can handle several hundred streaming >>> conncetions. >>> >>> I did do a test and am spending my night doing more. One culpret is >>> the looksups in that search. Doing a nested search is way faster. I >>> hope to go through all the major chunks and see what I can >>> streamline. >>> >>> I'll post some results in a few hours if that helps of side by side >>> tests, which is pretty well what I need to do. >>> >>> D. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Rob wrote: >>>> >>>> Sounds more like a bandwidth problem then a WebDNA problem.... >>>> What kind >>>> of >>>> line is this on? >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> >>>> On 15-Dec-08, at 2:59 PM, David Bastedo wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ok, so I just did a soft launch of a site on Friday and my site >>>>> traffic jumped over 200%. Normally, that would be great, except >>>>> the >>>>> site has now slowed to a crawl. >>>>> >>>>> I have many images on a seperate server, I have just added 6gb >>>>> to the >>>>> server - emrgency like, hoping it will help - it has - >>>>> marginally - >>>>> and now I am in the process of adding a third server - I also >>>>> have one >>>>> for streaming - and am planning on moving everything to MySQL - I >>>>> think - though it would not be my preference. >>>>> >>>>> Anyway before I can even contemplate that - doing that will take a >>>>> fair bit of time - I need to get the current site as fast as >>>>> possible, >>>>> to buy me some time to do this new update. >>>>> >>>>> I guess my biggest question is on tables. I am using tables on >>>>> this >>>>> site and I think that this may be the biggest issue. I need to >>>>> do a >>>>> lot of sorting and it "seemed" like the best, most convinient >>>>> way to >>>>> do it, though now I am wondering if this has caused way more >>>>> problems >>>>> that it has solved. >>>>> >>>>> Is it better to write to a temp db and then sort those results, >>>>> if I >>>>> have to, rather than a table: >>>>> >>>>> Here is a sample piece of code. (I am making custom music >>>>> playlists BTW) >>>>> >>>>> [table >>>>> >>>>> name=MyPlayListData&fields=PlayListItemID,PlayListID,Sequence,ConcertID,FLV_FileName,UserID,DateCreated,LastUpdate,FLV_Length,PlayListName,PlayListDescription,AlbumID,HSPSongID,PlayListID,PlayListDescription,UserID,PlayListType,DateCreated,timeTotal,MySongName,AlbumName,releaseDate,rating,MyRating][/table] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Search >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> aaa >>>>> .db >>>>> &gePlayListIDdata >>>>> = >>>>> 0 >>>>> &eqAlbumIDdata >>>>> =303&albumIDtype=num&[SO]sort=1&[SO]dir=[SB]&[SO]Type=num] >>>>> [founditems] >>>>> [replace >>>>> >>>>> table >>>>> = >>>>> MyPlayListData >>>>> &eqPlayListIDdatarq >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&PlayListIDtype >>>>> = >>>>> num >>>>> &eqUserIDdatarq >>>>> =[UserID]&UserIDtype=num&eqHSPSongIDdatarq=[HSPSongID]&append=T] >>>>> [!] >>>>> [/!]PlayListItemID=[PlayListItemID][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListID=[PlayListID][!] >>>>> [/!]&Sequence=[Sequence][!] >>>>> [/!]&ConcertID=[ConcertID][!] >>>>> [/!]&FLV_FileName=[FLV_FileName][!] >>>>> [/!]&UserID=[UserID][!] >>>>> [/!]&DateCreated=[DateCreated][!] >>>>> [/!]&LastUpdate=[LastUpdate][!] >>>>> [/!]&FLV_Length=[FLV_Length][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListName=[PlayListName][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[PlayListDescription][!] >>>>> [/!]&AlbumID=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=AlbumID][!] >>>>> [/!]&HSPSongID=[HSPSongID][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListName=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListName][!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListDescription=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListDescription][!] >>>>> [/!]&UserID=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db&value=[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=UserID] >>>>> [!] >>>>> [/!]&PlayListType=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=PlayListType][!] >>>>> [/!]&DateCreated=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> =[PlayListID]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=DateCreated][!] >>>>> [/!]&rating=[LOOKUP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> yyy >>>>> .db >>>>> &value >>>>> = >>>>> [PlayListID >>>>> ]&lookInField=PlayListID&returnField=rating]&MyRating=[search >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> db=[pagePath]databases/ >>>>> xxx.db&eqStoryIDdatarq=[PlayListID]&eqUserIDdatarq=[GETCOOKIE >>>>> name=xxx]][founditems][TheRating][/founditems][/search][/replace] >>>>> >>>>> [/founditems] >>>>> [/search] >>>>> >>>>> -> then I have to do two more seraches. One for the results and >>>>> one >>>>> for next/prev >>>>> >>>>> [search >>>>> >>>>> table >>>>> = >>>>> MyPlayListData >>>>> &gePlayListIDData >>>>> = >>>>> 0 >>>>> &eqalbumIDdatarq >>>>> = >>>>> 303 >>>>> &PlayListIDsumm >>>>> = >>>>> T >>>>> &[SB >>>>> ]sort=1&[SB]sdir=[SO]&[SB]type=[SB_type]&startAt=[startat]&max=10] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I know I can make this code more streamlined, but I am not sure >>>>> if it >>>>> is the tables that are a problem. >>>>> >>>>> Without a load, these pages work great, but with the increased >>>>> traffic, it now takes - well WAY too long to load a page. >>>>> Anyway, I am >>>>> going through and make my code thinner, as it were - I can get >>>>> rid of >>>>> a bunch of the lookups above and replace with another search, >>>>> but I am >>>>> wondering if I should replace all the tables in the site with a >>>>> temp >>>>> .db. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts? or advice? Thanks in advance. >>>>> >>>>> D. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> David Bastedo >>>>> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >>>>> http://www.10plus1.com >>>>> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>>>> the mailing list . >>>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>>>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>>>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>>> the mailing list . >>>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Bastedo >>> Ten Plus One Communications Inc. >>> http://www.10plus1.com >>> 416.603.2223 ext.1 >>> --------------------------------------------------------- >>> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >>> the mailing list . >>> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >>> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >>> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to >> the mailing list . >> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: >> archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us >> old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/ >> > > > > -- > David Bastedo > Ten Plus One Communications Inc. > http://www.10plus1.com > 416.603.2223 ext.1 > --------------------------------------------------------- > This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . > To unsubscribe, E-mail to: > archives: http://mail.webdna.us/list/talk@webdna.us > old archives: http://dev.webdna.us/TalkListArchive/
christophe.billiottet@webdna.us
DOWNLOAD WEBDNA NOW!
Top Articles:
Talk List
The WebDNA community talk-list is the best place to get some help: several hundred extremely proficient programmers with an excellent knowledge of WebDNA and an excellent spirit will deliver all the tips and tricks you can imagine...
Related Readings:
WebCatalog seems to choke on large (2meg) html files. (1998)
ANother SHOWIF problem (1997)
Card clearance, problems - solutions? (1997)
Webcat & SIMS (1998)
Math (1997)
Admin Edit prob. (1997)
docs for WebCatalog2 (1997)
Anyone running WebMerchant 4.0? (2000)
emailer (1997)
Credit Card Processing (2000)
Amusement (2004)
Suggestions (1998)
Odd [math] behaviour (2003)
For those of you not on the WebCatalog Beta... (1997)
WebCat2: multiple currency support (1997)
WebCat2: multiple currency support (1997)
Emailer setup (1997)
WebCatalog/WebMerchant bug? (1999)
Re:Dumb Question about Docs (1997)
shipcost and Formulas.db (2000)