j_random_hacker

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   I love the concept of sharding counters to trade write performance for read performance! As so often happens, my understanding advances by looking at something I thought I knew the only possible answer to ("Of course a counter goes in a si
2. 2.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   You are worrying about correctness of concurrency. Yes, this should always be worried about. The parent poster is worrying about performance of concurrency. This doesn't need to be worried about unless you are one of about 5-10 tech c
3. 3.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   I didn't like this idea at first, since it struck me that if for some reason you had to create many records in quick succession (e.g. some kind of bulk upload) they would essentially be placed in random order. But thinking about it, the on
4. 4.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   My take on that comment was that it was not a subtle attack at all -- it was merely an observation that it's not a logical necessity for the leaders of a large country to be extroverts.
5. 5.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   Thanks, you're quite right. Having now skimmed the paper "Does an interface with less assistance provoke more thoughtful behavior?", I would say that the measures of how many moves were made or remade, and how long was taken before the fir
6. 6.▲
   by j_random_hacker 16y ago

   Totally agree. I didn't read the paper, but I doubt they have modeled the fact that people have a finite amount of time that they can invest in internalising stuff . IOW, (I presume) they have not looked at the opportunity cost of inte