I've been able to come up with a better performing way of doing this,
and its now committed to my fork if anyone is interested.

http://github.com/sml/thinking-sphinx

On Mar 30, 11:00 am, matt <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 11, 6:54 pm, matt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Here's an attempt at what I describe above.  Keep in mind that I
> > really don't know what I'm doing 
> > :)http://github.com/sml/thinking-sphinx/commit/4b90abbe48caab5ad21843ec...
>
> While this works, it turns out not to perform that well, it might be
> possible to optimize the query, so I'm all ears if anyone has a
> suggestion.
>
> The alternative is to either just live with the delta inconsistencies
> till a full index is performed, update the parent's updated_at when
> the child gets saved, or come up with another delta implementation.  I
> don't want to have to have a delta column on my models, so I'm
> thinking something similar to a delayed delta, but where I record
> dirty model names and ids in a separate table, and process them in
> batch.
>
> Can anyone else think of another possibility?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Thinking Sphinx" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to