From: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc |
---|---|
To: | Harry Jackson <harryjackson(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Suspending SELECTs |
Date: | 2006-01-18 16:50:17 |
Message-ID: | 20060118165017.GA10026@mark.mielke.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:41:57PM +0000, Harry Jackson wrote:
> There are various reason why google might want to limit the search
> result returned ie to encourage people to narrow their search. Prevent
> screen scrapers from hitting them really hard blah blah. Perhaps less
> than 0.00000001% of real users (not scrapers) actually dig down to the
> 10th page so whats the point.
I recall a day when google crashed, apparently due to a Windows virus
that would use google to obtain email addresses.
As an unsubstantiated theory - this may have involved many, many clients,
all accessing search page results beyond the first page.
I don't see google optimizing for the multiple page scenario. Most
people (as I think you agree above), are happy with the first or
second page, and they are gone. Keeping a cursor for these people as
anything more than an offset into search criteria, would not be
useful.
Cheers,
--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2006-01-18 16:54:21 | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |
Previous Message | Mindaugas | 2006-01-18 15:50:49 | Re: Autovacuum / full vacuum |