Deep down, I already knew this was a bad idea, otherwise it would be the default. It's confirmed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00002.html
On Jun 17, 2:03 pm, Nalin Mittal <[email protected]> wrote: > What are the cons of using a large sql_range_step? Is it a bad idea to > do this in production? > I have records in my prod database that stemmed from fixtures but are > critical at this point. It would be a huge pain to update the ids and > not break any of the associations. > > Would love to hear your thoughts. > > On Apr 20, 6:55 am, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > An alternative method is to specify your ids explicitly (yes, I > > realise this is more work). > > > Personally, I steer clear of fixtures, and use Pete Yandell's > > Machinist.http://github.com/notahat/machinist/tree/master > > > Good to know you figured it all out though :) > > > -- > > Pat > > > On 16/04/2009, at 4:59 AM, matt wrote: > > > > Adding a large value for the option 'sql_range_step' to sphinx.yml did > > > the trick, e.g. > > > > config/sphinx.yml : > > > > development: > > > address: localhost > > > port: 3312 > > > mem_limit: 64M > > > sql_range_step: 1000000000 > > > > test: > > > address: localhost > > > port: 3313 > > > mem_limit: 64M > > > sql_range_step: 1000000000 > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
