I'm an idiot

[Stefan]

I know the statistics page is only updated once in a while, but because of some weird reason at the "Sum of 3x3/4x4/5x5 ranks (since Oct 23, 2008 - Single and Average)" page, it says that I have the 12th single time in 3x3

Do you think this is wrong? What should it be?

 

[Kian]

I know the statistics page is only updated once in a while, but because of some weird reason at the "Sum of 3x3/4x4/5x5 ranks (since Oct 23, 2008 - Single and Average)" page, it says that I have the 12th single time in 3x3

Do you think this is wrong? What should it be?

Erik has the best single. He should rank 1, not 12.

 

[JL58]

Erik who?

 

[miniGOINGS]

ctrl+z?

Yes. Just, yes.

 

[Edmund]

Erik who?

Erik Erikson

Spoiler

Erik Akkersdijk

 

[Stefan]

Maybe memory or efficiency aren't the biggest concerns now since there are 'only' 75,000 records. But what about in 10 years when there may be 1,000,000?

You mean when computers and the internet are much more powerful than today?

At what point is it time to improve things?

When things aren't good enough anymore. Or when they won't be good enough anymore in the foreseeable future.

Each competition could have its own table

Wow that is ugly. Plus, you think we can do the database's job better than it? Plus, for views other than single competition you want me to send hundreds of queries to hundreds of tables? Yeah right.

Each competition could have its own table referencing individual events, which in turn would hold the actual results. Doing this for the WCA results means result tables lose half their current columns (big drop in memory usage!)

1. I don't see how that would lose half the columns. Probably cause it's not clear what you mean.
2. I don't think 50% are worth the ugliness. Unless we really have a speed problem. Which we don't.

and can be queried for individual competition results significantly faster

I just tested the 2009 world championship page, I think that's the largest competition. The query took 0.0437 seconds. Why do you think that needs to be faster?

This also essentially eliminates the chance of a fatal mistake like Tyson's

Not really.

If a competitor's name needs to be changed, using a more normalized schema it is changed once, not 100 times in some big results table.

So what? Big deal. Btw, we do already have a persons table, and the redundancy is only for efficiency reasons.

Assigning numeric uids means even WCAIDs can be changed by updating only 1 row.

No idea what you mean. Uids for what?

If a result needs to be modified, it is updated in just one event on just one table. No results from other competitions or events are touched.

Um, that's the case already?

Summary: You want to make things ugly, contrary to the spirit of databases, to solve a problem that isn't there.

 

[Stefan]

I know the statistics page is only updated once in a while, but because of some weird reason at the "Sum of 3x3/4x4/5x5 ranks (since Oct 23, 2008 - Single and Average)" page, it says that I have the 12th single time in 3x3

Do you think this is wrong? What should it be?

Erik has the best single. He should rank 1, not 12.

If you say that because of his 7.08, that was not "since Oct 23, 2008".

 

[waffle=ijm]

Erik who?

Erik Erikson

Spoiler

Erik Johnson. Yes the Petrus User.

fixed that spoiler for you.

 

[Tim Major]

^^^^^LOL^^^^^
Ownage.

Yes, quite a few records are still wrong, but I'm sure they'll soon be fixed.

Edit: This was aimed at Stefan's comment.

Edit 2: No, only the stats page.

 

[Stefan]

Yes, quite a few records are still wrong

Other than on the statistics page?

 

[Edmund]

Erik who?

Erik Erikson

Spoiler

Erik Johnson. Yes the Petrus User.

fixed that spoiler for you.

Ouch, I feel like a total ignoramus.

 

[Stefan]

Edit 2: No, only the stats page.

If that's an answer to my clarification request... please don't go back to edit your posts to answer a question asked below. I almost missed it.

 

[Tim Major]

Edit 2: No, only the stats page.

If that's an answer to my clarification request... please don't go back to edit your posts to answer a question asked below. I almost missed it.

Oops, sorry. I was trying a little too hard to keep my post count down.

 

[Stefan]

Oops, sorry. I was trying a little too hard to keep my post count down.

Why? Please don't tell me you're listening to the idiots who act like double-posting is a sin. Oh gosh... I just searched a little and saw you're constantly apologizing for double-posting when you really shouldn't. Sigh.

 

[miniGOINGS]

Oops, sorry. I was trying a little too hard to keep my post count down.

Why? Please don't tell me you're listening to the idiots who act like double-posting is a sin. Oh gosh... I just searched a little and saw you're constantly apologizing for double-posting when you really shouldn't. Sigh.

Just a little question for you Stefan, do you recall ever double-posting yourself?

 

[dannyz0r]

He's done it tons of times.

 

[DavidWoner]

Edit 2: No, only the stats page.

If that's an answer to my clarification request... please don't go back to edit your posts to answer a question asked below. I almost missed it.

Oops, sorry. I was trying a little too hard to keep my post count down.

Posts in off-topic do not count towards your post count.

 

[Stefan]

Just a little question for you Stefan, do you recall ever double-posting yourself?

Sure. Happens often. Most recent example on the previous page of this thread. I also edit often, but if I have something significant to add and it's been more than a few seconds since my previous post, then there's a considerable risk that people who already saw the original post would miss the edit. Hence I often double post. And it really pisses me off when people get attacked for clearly legitimate double posts. Well, I *don't* recall people attacking *me* for it, I assume that's because they're not only morons but also cowards.

 

[Bob]

Pochmann, I missed you!

 

[cmhardw]

Pochmann, I missed you!

I was thinking the same thing, Stefan's back!

Chris