If I'm remembering correctly, and I'm pretty sure I am, the personal messages table is huge and is one of the major causes of database slowth.
My gut says that Tribe could get a performance boost if personal messages were deleted after six months. That might even be tied into premium features-- personal messages only get deleted after six months for non-premium members.
My gut says that Tribe could get a performance boost if personal messages were deleted after six months. That might even be tied into premium features-- personal messages only get deleted after six months for non-premium members.
posted by:
|
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 11:12 AMYou are correct, I am actually doing maintenance on this this week -- nobody ever told me about this or how to fix it, but I figured it out a month ago when Nagios started telling me that the recipient table was 80% full. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 11:36 AMAre you still using my performance test suite? If so, running a lot of homepage tests should help you figure out if you've made much difference. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 11:43 AMI am not -- I didn't even know about your test suite until you just mentioned it.
This also reminds me, I have to get the Patti reports working again! -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 12:26 PMMay a non-techie pipe up on this?
My thought is that since we get a copy of all PMs sent to our off site email inboxes, if one wanted to save them there, it might well help ease the load here. If we really want to save a message here, we have that option, as long as you wouldn't delete 'saved' messages.
Just a thought...
~Aloha~
: D -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 11:22 PMThe below surprised me....
I know of this problem and try to delete messages.. but know my "sent" messages are saved in the "inbox" of those I send them too and vice versa.. The other day I was looking at my e-mails (Where my tribe messages are CC'ed to) and found a message I had deleted from my "Inbox". I clicked the link on the e-mail from tribe - and was able to access this message - presumably because the person who sent it to me had not deleted it.. (But when I hit "reply" that did not work,,,)
Does this mean there is a duplicate of every message sent between two people - one for the sender and one for the receiver - would this double the server space required to store them ?
If I delete messages in my inbox (or sent items) does it mean that space is saved - or is only the case if both the sender and receiver deletes the message..
If tribe ever set-up messages which could be sent to multiple people - would that consume a hell of a lot of server space ?
Should we have a "delete your PMs" campaign via tribes ? If we did this - would the loss of data in a short time of space cause any troubles..
I am like a three year old today... full of questions :) -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Thu, March 20, 2008 - 11:52 PMNo, not quite Bloke. It means that there's one copy of a message stored, and two pointers to it. One pointer is in your outbox, and the other is in the recipient's inbox.
In other words, the storage for an inbox looks something like this (a highly simplified view):
Msg 123
Msg 2228
Msg 39192
Msg 121321
Msg 33333333
An outbox would be similar. So if I sent you a message, you'd get "Msg 332233223" in your inbox, and I'd get "Msg 332233223" in my outbox. There would be one copy of the message stored away with a message ID of 332233223.
If multi-recipient got implemented, there would still be one copy of the message, and every recipient would have a pointer to it in their inbox.
The slowness of there being tons of messages is actually in looking through the list of messages to find out what's in your inbox. Tribe (probably) only opens the body of the message itself when you view your inbox or the message itself. However, it frequently scans the list of messages to see if you have anything new. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 12:00 AMThanks Patti.. so all I am doing in deleting my messages is deleting one pointer :( -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 12:08 AMYeah, basically. But that's one less pointer that has to be scanned every time the system checks to see if someone has new messages. So while technically you're not deleting a big pile of bytes, you're actually doing a lot to help the bottleneck.
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 12:09 AMHmm...this doesn't explain why we don't have multiple receipient capabilities at all. How hard could it be to simply assign multiple pointers (he asked innocently)? Still, what does happen when all pointers to a message are deleted? I mean, what happens to that message? The theory is that it is deleted/dereferenced into nil and the void, right?
BTW, is there and option to forward >sent< messages to the senders mailbox? Just wondering...I mean, if there is going to be automatic destructo of messages after a certain time period, it certainly would be nice to permit users to archive these messages via email to their non-tribe data retention hub(s). -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 12:23 AMThe reasons that multi-recipient weren't implemented when I was there basically had to do with concerns of people spamming their friends. The back end should support it reasonably well, I think, it's just a matter of the UI.
I don't know of a way to forward sent messages to your mailbox. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 1:18 AM<I don't know of a way to forward sent messages to your mailbox. >
Neither do I (but I do have then Cc'ed there.. (know how to do that Timbo?)
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 9:53 PMPersonally, if someone was constantly sPaMming me, and they didn't desist when I requested that they stop, I'd probaby remove them from my network. Blogs are for mass info dispersion, not email. I still want the ability to send the same PM to multiple friends easily. It makes communication much easier when you have to meet someone one somewhere or have a subgroup of friends that you want to communicate with quickly. I suppose if they fixed events and listings up it might be a good alternative...however, in my opinion, those were and are too clunky to be a good substitute for multiple recipient PMs. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Sat, March 22, 2008 - 6:08 PMTime limits on space are not a good idea. Someone might take a sabatical and need to look up something. 6 months in a busy persons life is notime.
<May a non-techie pipe up on this?
My thought is that since we get a copy of all PMs sent to our off site email inboxes, if one wanted to save them there, it might well help ease the load here. If we really want to save a message here, we have that option, as long as you wouldn't delete 'saved' messages.
Just a thought...
~Aloha~
: D >
i keep both. JIC. I have to use it in the future in court or something like that. I want both records to match that way I am sure of what I am saying to who and what they are saying to me. Especially since Semi-private conversations are difficult to this date. -
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Sun, March 23, 2008 - 4:29 AMI say leave it an option but be very direct about the six month time out. Also, I'd like to get PMs sent by me as well...if there is going to be a time limit on messages at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: A performance suggestion
Fri, March 21, 2008 - 2:28 AMI agree 100%. Nuke the messages. I try to delete them, but it gets away from me. The one time I tried to find the end of my inbox, I gave up. It's just insane. Kill it. 6mo. is plenty of time to copy needed information.
