zasdffaa

67 ms·

691.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
No. It depends. You weigh it up. And a little (cheap) nous can often beat a truckload of hardware.
692.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Err, I did
693.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
SSDs will have higher latency than ram, and I seriously wonder if they actually can hit 7GB/sec, or only theoretical. Ram is faster, always, in latency and bandwidth. > I've benchmarked some not-so-old servers (the entire box,
694.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Really?? I am very surprised, do you have any pointers on this? Kind of important thing to me, thanks.
695.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I've not used columnstore in MSSQL but in fact I likely know more about the innards of MSSQL than you. WRT memory, all I mant was that if your working set doesn't fit in RAM, you're screwed regardless. Nothing will save you
696.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Whenever I read stuff like this my inner optimiser starts wondering where the CPU is going and why - massive GC cycles, inefficient regexp stuff, poor algo choice, bad cache locality, etc etc. At the risk of ill manners but i must ask, have
697.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Gotcha. But FYI I wrote a work farmer years ago and it wasn't difficult. You just manually started a program over there and started the farmer over here and that was all. It could use every machine in the office. These days there
698.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
OK, you win! Just a thought, if embarrassingly parallel, buy a 2nd desktop and farm it out?
699.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Worked in a place where the local architecture astronaut had taken over and we were subject to his insane designs that were virtualisation and microservices everywhere. A monolithic lump on a server would have been better, cheaper, faster i
700.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Cloud stuff is never going to make sense, local machine it is. I do see what you're saying and here it seems like a good fit for a massive machine. No argument here. NB. "Trawling through 70 GB of web server log files" unless
701.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I talked about linux recompiles because sometimes you do need the cores; not arguing. But that's the long tail and many devs don't. I'm not against blowing cash if needed, but really it's about asking if there are more e
702.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I'm interested, what are you doing that can eat all those cores>
703.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I'm a dev too, my machine is a dual core haswell. It depends very much what you're doing of course (compiling linux kernel repeatedly perhaps) but if you have a little you can get a heck of a lot out of it with experience, althoug
704.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
> because I sure would love to have more cores available (currently rocking a 32 core Threadripper) wtf do you need more cores for??? Wat are you doing? > not interested in actually pushing HEDT forward since consider buying a server.
705.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
That cat thing is brill. Thanks for starting my day with a major larf.
706.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
That's helpful, thanks! Reminds me of a description of continuations as "gotos with parameters" which seems to be what you sort of want - I'll do some reading. Appreciated.
707.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Steele's paper was mentioned in the earlier link. If goto is easily available in the high level language then creating a state machine is trivial I guess. If it's not then the compiler should be able to do TCO with jumps/goto
708.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Err, goto? I'll read Steele's paper but introducing complexity only to struggle to delete that complexity is a strange approach
709.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
"Bundled with corruption and misaligned incentive structures, it's ridiculously dumb and ineffective" Aren't there the same 'corruption and misaligned incentive structures' in China, yet they seem to be doing r
710.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
"Do nothing because the results aren't instant". Great advice.
711.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I'd prefer to be given the truth. Explicitly asking to be deceived, well I can't understand that.
712.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Well, good points but I was rather thinking the compiler should do it as an option. Of lesser note, I don't believe I've ever come across mutually tail recursive functions, or the need for them, and although that may reflect my la
713.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Serious question, isn't that just a while/for/do loop? If people want TCO then... just write a loop, surely? I must be missing something.
714.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31364281
715.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31364281
716.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Indexes are used all over for grouping an ordering, I was objecting only to the syntax of ORDER BY <number>
717.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
Interesting, ta. My code rarely looks like that so thanks for the insight. Was exactrly what I was looking for.
718.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
> suggesting using a fully-qualified table name if they actually wanted the table column (t.x in the above example). I just realised why this was bothering me. That means 't' and 't.x' are actually different variables
719.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
I'm against doing anything without checking beforehand whether it's actually going to be worth the effort. But yes, I'd be far happier doing left-to-right dependencies only, which I can believe (though I still need evidence)
720.
by zasdffaa 4y ago
> Note you can already reference select list items in GROUP, HAVING, and ORDER BY so it's not that big of an extension. You're just looking for symbols in the symbol table, I think it's a big difference! > IMO only allo

More ›