3 ms·

Yeah, that's what you'd do as the user makes a vote. But how would you load the page in the first place? The front page is different for each user, as they've l

by desu 17y ago

Yeah, that's what you'd do as the user makes a vote. But how would you load the page in the first place? The front page is different for each user, as they've likely voted up and down numerous links on it. You could load a generic page and then apply their votes by AJAX or something but that doesn't strike me as being any more efficient for the DB than just generating the page.

ajkirwin 17y ago
Loading data from the db can be cheaper than actually RENDERING said data, so if you can push that clientside, you can save cycles.
bmelton 17y ago
For the most part, we were serving a generic page, except for prior actions done by the user. The only major differences between your page and my page, for example, is that article 5 might not show vote links at all, if I had previously voted on them. For the most part, we accomplished this through cookies. If the cookie exists, read in a hashmap of activities you've recently performed, and update the page DOM based on those. If the cookie didn't exist, then go ahead and do a full query from the db, repop the cache and build the cookie. That said, we noticed that in a lot of cases, that wasn't ideal, and we started rendering partial templates -- so instead of loading a whole page from cache, we would load page parts, basically one part for each article. This worked well, as each template was basically a pre-rendered static file, and we only had two basic states to work with -- whether the user had voted on this before or not. Our new strategy then was to query just the indexed table for a user's recent votes, separately query an index for which articles to display, and load the templates for the to-be-displayed articles based upon the user's vote state. That allowed the page to render a lot faster, but kept the box under more load. Though we suspect it would have scaled well enough (had the project not eventually fizzled out), it wasn't ideal server-side, though delivered a vastly superior end-user experience. YMMV.

by desu 17y ago

ajkirwin 17y ago

Loading data from the db can be cheaper than actually RENDERING said data, so if you can push that clientside, you can save cycles.

bmelton 17y ago

For the most part, we were serving a generic page, except for prior actions done by the user. The only major differences between your page and my page, for example, is that article 5 might not show vote links at all, if I had previously voted on them. For the most part, we accomplished this through cookies. If the cookie exists, read in a hashmap of activities you've recently performed, and update the page DOM based on those. If the cookie didn't exist, then go ahead and do a full query from the db, repop the cache and build the cookie. That said, we noticed that in a lot of cases, that wasn't ideal, and we started rendering partial templates -- so instead of loading a whole page from cache, we would load page parts, basically one part for each article. This worked well, as each template was basically a pre-rendered static file, and we only had two basic states to work with -- whether the user had voted on this before or not. Our new strategy then was to query just the indexed table for a user's recent votes, separately query an index for which articles to display, and load the templates for the to-be-displayed articles based upon the user's vote state. That allowed the page to render a lot faster, but kept the box under more load. Though we suspect it would have scaled well enough (had the project not eventually fizzled out), it wasn't ideal server-side, though delivered a vastly superior end-user experience. YMMV.