Hi Gyuri

An interesting idea. My one concern is that people expect search updates to be 
as fast as possible - so if we're pushing it out to 30 minutes, that's less 
than ideal.

Would it be better to only delay the job by the given window (I'd default it to 
a few minutes) if there's an existing job in the queue? That way, you shouldn't 
end up with any more than two items in the queue, right?

-- 
Pat

On 20/03/2011, at 3:52 PM, vdbilt wrote:

> Hi Pat,
> 
> Having looked at suspended_delta to prevent continuous delta indexing
> during bulk updates, I came up with a possibly useful approach when
> you're using delayed_delta. This doesn't define a block that runs
> before indexing occurs, but it makes sure indexing is only run every X
> minutes at max. Interested to hear your opinion / possible objections
> on this approach (changing the behaviour of ts_delayed_delta):
> https://gist.github.com/878738
> 
> Thanks,
> Gyuri
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 1:26 pm, Pat Allan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Calvin
>> 
>> That's a smart idea with using the delta flags as a reliable indicator of 
>> what to remove from the core index. Hadn't thought of that. Can you log an 
>> issue on Github for it? You're welcome to fork and patch too, if you'd like 
>> :)
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> --
>> Pat
>> 
>> On 09/02/2011, at 7:15 PM, calvin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Hi,
>> 
>>> When using suspended_delta, any changes made within the block is not
>>> fully reflected in the index. I'm using delayed_delta.
>> 
>>> For example:
>> 
>>> Product.suspended_delta do
>>>  .....
>>>  product.description = "some new description"
>>>  product.save
>>> end
>> 
>>> Now when you search the Product index, product is searchable by both
>>> new description and old (slate) description. This is because the
>>> record in the core index not deleted when using suspended_delta. It
>>> would seem like suspended_delta should query all objects with
>>> delta=true and call delete_in_index on each on all core indexes.
>> 
>>> Please let me know if this suggestion make sense.
>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> Calvin
>> 
>>> --
>>> 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 
>>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/thinking-sphinx?hl=en.
> 
> -- 
> 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.
> 

-- 
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