Ed, how long will it be until you advise how long it will be until the search function is fixed?
Perhaps your setting a deadline for the repair might provide motivation to get the repair done.
The search function at [advertising link deleted - SkipMagic] works well, so we know it’s possible. Are the limitations here due to the huge number of archived posts?
I’ve removed your advertising link to another site, Baldwin. Please do not advertise for another site without prior staff permission. As it’s stated in the Registration Agreement:
I wasn’t advertising. Since [advertising link deleted - SkipMagic] was modeled so closely on the SDMB, I felt it was relevant.
You’ve been told not to advertise another site. Don’t do it again.
Can I have an answer as to when Ed will say how long it will be until the search function is fixed?
Since phrases and three letter words which could reduce search results don’t work, and search results have a limited number of results before they cut off, could we have the date variable option updated please. An option for 1 year, 2 year, 3 year, 4 year, 5 year or whatever you can manage so we can reach the all the periods that search results won’t display due to the cut off and the volume of results? Thanks.
Am inquiring with Jerry, will let you know.
These fatal errors are due to searches which are so broad in scope they exhaust the 128M of memory allocated to a search process:
I’m not sure I want to “fix” these errors since the fix is allocating even more memory to a search process. Doing so has downsides for the performance the rest of the board users will receive while these broad searches are running.
I’ll weigh off the pros and cons of increasing the amount of memory allocated with the hardware host and then make a decision as to how to proceed.
Jerry
Is there a way to eliminate or lessen the waiting time between searches when the memory error occurs? Since it seems to be certain words that trigger the error, it is very frustrating to try to find terms that work and figure out which word is causing the issue.
Since “World Health Organization” is too broad in scope, then it is time to redefine the scope, and if necessary, provide sufficient resources to permit such scope.
When will the decision to fix or not to fix the problem be made?
I’ve waited, but nobody has said yes or no.
Surely a process that fails is worse than taking more resources?
In general, one process failing for one user is probably better than all users having interminable page loads and so on.
Search on this board is fatally flawed anyway - no three letter words, no common words, no words with quote mark in, etc. - and needs to be redone from the ground up. If attention, time, and effort is going to be focused on any part of the search process, I’d rather it be on that rather than on slapping more band-aids on an already gangrenous limb.
Maybe that’s just me.
See that word I highlighted? That’s the problem right there. These things are generally left on this place for a long time before anything is done. There may be valid resources and monetary restrictions for them but they are left alone. That’s my experience of the way this place has been run.
Maybe that’s just me.
Just in the interest of lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness, the usual course of action when non-realtime functions start interfering with a realtime database is to offload the historical data to some sort of data warehouse.
This could be as simple as taking all posts older than, say, 3 years or so, and extracting them into a new database. Point another vBB instance at it (say, archive.straightdope.com). Script a weekly ETL job to transfer the historical data to the archive board, and viola. The archive board would of course be closed to posting and could even be limited to paying members.
We may have to do something like this. Search has a couple problems, but the huge size of the database is clearly the major one. I’m going to talk it over with Jerry this week.
I’ve temporarily increased the amount of memory that a search process can use. This is as an experiment to see what impact such a change will have on the performance of the message boards. vBulletin places limits on how much memory any one process can consume in order to not unduly effect the whole. I’ve raised those limits and we’ll see what the net result is. If the additional resources allocated to search negatively effect reading and posting to the message boards then we’ll revert to the current situation as I look at other options.
Thanks Jerry & Ed, I appreciate the update.
Correct me if I’m misremembering, but wasn’t the 300 second search limitation a “temporary” band-aid for the last time board performance was a big issue?
It seems like it has become permanent enough that it’s just accepted as the norm while discussing the current board performance problems.