Could it be picking collabs from other brewery pages? Or aliases?
1 Like
Whose interests does it serve for the page to be up? For whom does this count as progress?
I just added a beer, rated it and refreshed the brewer page. As it loaded it first said I have rated 11 beers from the brewery, while elsewhere on the page said Iād rated 14. Then it finished loading and said Iād rated 28 of the breweryās 24 beers.
2 Likes
Only serves the interest of makeing people move to Uā¦
2 Likes
Highly doubtful. For example it showed me that I have rated double the beers than a brewery actually had - and there are no aliases there and they didnāt have that many collabs with others, nowhere near.
1 Like
All of the ones I have noticed have told me precisely double the number of beers I have actually rated, which implies it is just a coding error where it accidentally counts everything twice.
2 Likes
Exactly my understanding as well, so if this is an easy fix, this will not get resolved this year, far more importants data to screw up firstā¦
5 Likes
Ok. Like that i can sort on my score, Love the light colouring so its cla the ones i had.
Love that ctrl-F now seems to work
New frustration is i sort, click on beer, go back and then i need sort again. its lost the order i wanted
But WAY WAY better than last week
3 Likes
Also I have just spotted the small print above the beer list telling me how many beers Iāve rated from a brewery.
Just to know. When I type letters on the Search menu of the beer list, sometimes, some letters are simply jumped because of the lag and the search wonāt return anything because of that. Am I the only in this situation? Am I typing that fast?
2 Likes
I do not know if anybody already submitted this feedback, but with the old page it was possible to see the last ratings received by a brewery. Now not anymore.
Would it be possible to have this feature back?
The Recent Ratings section was there on launch but went missing during an updateā¦donāt know what happened with itā¦I know it was hard to load and made the page lagā¦maybe they removed it until they fix itā¦
no, it was on the brewery page itself.
It was this one if Iām correct.
We have decided to remove it for the moment as it was contributing to excessive load issues. Itās a really resource heavy process which involves pulling back all the reviews across the entire product range and then presenting the most recent ones.
The devs are still seeing whether we can achieve this in a more efficient way.
It was there before (in a different tab in the Brewer page) and it didnāt have any load issue at all. What causes those load issues now?
1 Like
SELECT reviews.*, users.name, beers.name
FROM reviews
INNER JOIN beers ON reviews.beerid=beers.id
INNER JOIN users ON reviews.userid=users.id
WHERE beers.brewerid=?
ORDER BY reviews.date DESC, user.id ASC
LIMIT 1
You do have indexes for all the appropriate key fields, I trust? (Actually, given what youāve said, I donāt trustā¦)
To whom should I send the bill?
3 Likes
We donāt run MySQL but why would you do a costly secondary sort by UserID if you arenāt using it? And any table.* select is needlessly costly if you arenāt using all the columns, and we definitely arenāt. Limiting to 1? Why? And whereās your pagination?
So come onā¦ letās stop badgering the engineers with know-it-all advice. Itās just mean.
The items are being looked at and will be gotten to in time. I do thank you for keeping these important items on my radar. We do have a heavy backlog but when it comes time to plan for the next quarter, itās good to know what was left behind and continues to be irksome.
2 Likes
why would you do a costly secondary sort by UserID if you arenāt using it?
Iāll address that later.
And any table.* select is needlessly costly if you arenāt using all the columns
HOW THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT ME TO KNOW WHAT COLUMNS YOU HAVE!?!?!?
Sorry, mind-reading is not one of my skills. Why not criticise me for getting the table names wrong as well? (And the obvious typo!)
Limiting to 1? Why?
Because I have no idea how many were being displayed, Iāve never seen the lists, as theyāve never been of interest to me. Itās an arbitrary number. 1 works well enough to satisfy āthe most recentā and it should be obvious how to generalise 1 to any other arbitrary number.
And whereās your pagination?
Pagination was not a feature that was even mentioned in passing. āThe most recent Xā is just āthe most recent Xā, not āa paged list of X in recency orderā. Just coding to the usersā requirements, nothing more. (Shocking, I know!)
However, I did put the capability for pagination in there.
And you noticed it.
It was the user id.
If you are doing pagination, you need to be able to uniquely identify the record to resume from and that must be unambiguously defined by the sort order. Two reviews could enter the database with identical timestamps, and therefore you need to be able to disambiguate them. I was presuming - not knowing what other fields might be available (remember, Iāve not seen your schema) - that a user would never race himself, and thus his id would assist the timestamp for achieving uniqueness. Those with better internal knowledge should be able to pick the most appropriate field obviously.
So, back to the ealier question - āwhy would you do a costly secondary sort by UserID if you arenāt using it?ā - well, Iāve shown that you do need, if not that, then something to separate identical timestamps. However, on to the ācostlyā aspect - the only time a comparison on that second field is actually performed is if there is a clash of timestamps, which should be very rare (you apparently think never). Itās either essential, or itās essentially free. Strangely youāve taken a ānot neededā and āexpensiveā line. Maybe you need a better DBE.
So come onā¦ letās stop badgering the engineers with know-it-all advice. Itās just mean.
Youāre employing the wrong staff, if they consider it mean. Engineers I know (been in the game 3 decades) have never taken offence at hypothetical solutions to know issues, they donāt take it as a threat. (However, Iāve worked in nothing but open source software for over a decade, perhaps weāre a different subspecies with different attitudes to information sharing.)
1 Like
