I've got some 3 year old mince in the freezer that I bought as a BOGOF offer.A week later my microwave died, and remembering to defrost stuff hours before I intend to eat, isn't my 'style'.
No.I have a nearly full packet in the freezer, but hate throwing food out. They are truly manky.
I've got some 3 year old mince in the freezer that I bought as a BOGOF offer.A week later my microwave died, and remembering to defrost stuff hours before I intend to eat, isn't my 'style'.
I hate defrosting things.I always forget its in the fridge, then get paranoid im going to cause myself a slow and agonising death by dodgy chicken.
You know you shouldn't eat it now,right?
Fuckin throw it out then ;) good ideaI'll do it now, while I remember
if you cook anything long and hard enoughit'll be fine
it's been in the freezer for 3 yearswhat could possibly still be growing on it? i'd eat it.
freezing it doesn't stop stuff growing on it,it just slows it down.
Well, -80°C would be pretty save,the usual -18°C is laughed at by the hard Northerner types of bacteria.
how are they at being fried though? That kills them,but you better hope it's not the kind of bastards* who produce a poison to keep other multicellular organisms like you off their munchies, because the poison will survive the frying no sweat.
*and it’s always them
*and it’s always them
the swine, i could have 'emin a fight though
Jonas, do you rember when you saidyou came up with an idiot proof way to prevent double posting.
It appears I broked it.
It appears I broked it.
Two ways to prevent double posts1] Before inserting a new post, query for the last post by the user, and if the subject and body matches, ignore it
- or -
2] Use AJAX and disable the submit button on submit
- or -
2] Use AJAX and disable the submit button on submit
I have an implementation of option 1 in test at the moment.Whilst it means an extra database query per post, I prefer it to the ajax option as it works even for people who disable javascript or don't have it available on their browser (phone/pdas/etc).
option 1 seems likely to be a bit hard on the server to methough I'm not particularly good at optimising sql stuff, I'm under the impression querying long strings isn't terribly efficient
Well, you're not doing the querying in the database,merely doing a simple select to get the most recent post by that user.
You then do the string comparison in your code, which should be relatively lightweight.
Admittedly, there's will be a performance hit, but I don't think it's unwarranted. The whole site and database structure is geared up to minimise impact when reading, as that's what is done most often.
You then do the string comparison in your code, which should be relatively lightweight.
Admittedly, there's will be a performance hit, but I don't think it's unwarranted. The whole site and database structure is geared up to minimise impact when reading, as that's what is done most often.
I cache my board data and invalidate it if and when a post is made or updatedThat way a simple F5 typically doesn't touch the database. I can't remember the perf increase but I think something like 10x faster in terms of fetching data. I've gone for [2] so double posts are impossible too
I haven't even begun to look seriously at caching yet.The django framework has some pretty hefty caching mechanisms in it, and I'll make use of those for some areas of the site as they're no-effort to me solutions.
For the board itself, I like your idea of invalidating the cache when a post is modified or created, and I know I can hook into the framework's cache structure to provide that sort of functionality, so it's something I'll look at.
Currently, there's a ratio of about 25:1 with reads to writes, so an approach like that should yield reasonable benefits.
For the board itself, I like your idea of invalidating the cache when a post is modified or created, and I know I can hook into the framework's cache structure to provide that sort of functionality, so it's something I'll look at.
Currently, there's a ratio of about 25:1 with reads to writes, so an approach like that should yield reasonable benefits.
Incidentally, I was comparing database performance between this codebase and the old one,and it seems like I've made things 10* times better already, which is pleasing.
*9.873 to be precise.
*9.873 to be precise.
It's just a shame you're persisting with php unless I've very much mistaken, it's phython and djangorather than php
I'm not.It's all in python now!
PHP is an abortion and should be stuck in a shallow grave.
PHP is an abortion and should be stuck in a shallow grave.
Sorry (both) I realised my mistake on the way homeI meant python of course. I did also change my mind on the way home since python is quite a sweet language. django looks alright but the whole approach is fundamentally broken I think. It does do exactly what you need, but I think you'll find it hard to expand beyond a simple web app
Basically I think it should have a service based architecture, but I've probably been reading too many WCF books
Basically I think it should have a service based architecture, but I've probably been reading too many WCF books
I've come to a similar conclusion regarding djangoas I've been considering using it for a work thing but think it's a bit limited for what I'm after
that said, it seems it's quite easy to write your own framework in python so there's no need to use django if it doesn't suit
that said, it seems it's quite easy to write your own framework in python so there's no need to use django if it doesn't suit
I'm all for doing it myself but that looks like a lot of hard work to meIt's a pity you refuse to come over to the dark side. You'll find all the best language features of python are already in C# (ie lambdas, anonymous types, closures etc), and the environment is much easier to get to grips with. Of course you could try IronPython too, which is faster than Python (which itself if a bit of a dog performance wise -- though better than Ruby)
Shame really
Shame really
ah, yesI hadn't considered using the last post by the user to check against rather.
I was imagining it checking the whole db for duplicates.
I was imagining it checking the whole db for duplicates.
Nah, that way madness lies.And certainly nothing like that was responsible for crippling the database under the old code base. Oh no.
I didn't say I'd implemented it.;-)
depends on the type of spores. true, if you had some sort of laboratory freezer or something, you might be ok. if you stored your food in the LHC, you'd be OKat 1.9 K, it'd be hard to find a bacteria that'd grow in that sort of temperature
build itand they will come
ssshhh!we almost had him eating 3 year old mince!
i don't want poots sick!you horrid meanies :(
are you calling him a poof?EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT! EAT IT!
hahaha,it's sounding like a dare.
i think most food started out as dareshow else would we have discovered that seafood is really nice
Imagine all the dares that went wrong . . .
Haggis Was that a failureor a lie?
uurgh look, Ug's drinking cows milkhow fucking gross is that!
see alsochicken eggs
Chuck enough chilli powder in with itand it should be fine . .