09 Feb '06 22:11>
Why did you deleted the opportunity to sort players ,in the rating tables,by Won,Lost,Drawn games?
Originally posted by GatecrasherHm, but since you still get the most recent player data, just not in the right order, doesn't it still require a full database query? Or is it the sorting which takes so much processing time? I don't really know how these things work.
I think the "improvement" is about putting less strain on the RHP servers. Every user request in the past would require a full database query. This way you are accessing a static table that is created only once a day. That is a big saving in processing time.
No reason why one should not be able to sort by won-drawn-lost, though.
Originally posted by RavelloCrazy title. Why not something like: "New player tables are bad" or "I don't like the new player tables" or something?
Why did you deleted the opportunity to sort players ,in the rating tables,by Won,Lost,Drawn games?
Originally posted by NordlysSurely that's a bug? It should be sorted by rating first and ranking second. So if several players has the same rating they should be sorted by ranking.
And when sorting by rating, it doesn't really sort by rating, but by rank, which is only updated once a day.
Originally posted by GatecrasherWell, that all depends on how the tables are stored. To sort by a field in a somewhat effective manner you'd need to index the field to sort by. Indexes take space. The bigger the table, the bigger the space.
No reason why one should not be able to sort by won-drawn-lost, though.
Originally posted by stockenWell, the rating determines the ranking (or if you sort by move number, for example, the move number determines the ranking), so you can't really "sort by ranking". If several people have the same rating, I think they are ranked alphabetically. What's confusing in the new tables is that the ranking is determined by the rating, move number etc. at a specific time of the day, while the tables show the newest rating, move number etc.
Surely that's a bug? It should be sorted by rating first and ranking second. So if several players has the same rating they should be sorted by ranking.
Originally posted by NordlysI see. So, ranking is more like your position in the table and nothing else. Well, then it makes no sense at all. That's not very hard to calculate. Hell, it doesn't even require calculating.
Well, the rating determines the ranking (or if you sort by move number, for example, the move number determines the ranking), so you can't really "sort by ranking". If several people have the same rating, I think they are ranked alphabetically. What's confusing in the new tables is that the ranking is determined by the rating, move number etc. at a specific time of the day, while the tables show the newest rating, move number etc.
Originally posted by stockenI do, and I had the same idea, I just didn't mention it for fear of stating the obvious. π
So, to avoid having to sort the tables on each request, Russ decided to create 3 static tables. One for each type of sorting we can do. He has the application update those tables every 24hrs, presorted according to the "real" player table as they were created. But instead of storing all the information in the static tables, he's just storing the player id's. re diskpace, but I think the consistency and the timesavings are worth it. Don't you?)
Originally posted by NordlysAnd your ranking is 472! π Whoooo...
Hey, your rank is 1000! π