By Josh Lewis on Thursday, 11 September 2014
Posted in General Issues
Replies 14
Likes 0
Views 657
Votes 0
It appears that ES 1.3 is storing both groups and events in the same database table (_social_clusters). I understand that they use pretty much the same data structure. However I recall the stacked team specifically uses more tables to optimize speed (great on you guys, perhaps maintain this practice for events/groups). So I'll highlight some concerns with the current method:

  • Up to double the records in a single table, possible speed loss.

  • ID numbers will increase faster and will not give users an accurate representation of the object count for that type of object.

  • Alias's are stored under the same table. As a result you could not have /group/test and event/test as the main alias name at the same time. The auto incrementing set in place helps the situation, but makes one have to deal with more numbers. Separation of the db table would allow for them both to qualify as unique without the auto increment having to take place.

Considering that events is not yet on public sites, it's not too late to change if there are better practices. I'm not saying I'm right here, I'm bringing in food for thought to think/talk about.
Hello Josh,

Hm, in that case this is actually a bug in the custom field because it should actually test against the type of the cluster as well.
·
Friday, 12 September 2014 15:41
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Hello Josh,

Yep, that's correct. We'll be sharing all these "data types" in a same table and there's actually pros and cons to this. Look at wordpress, everything is stored in a single table


Up to double the records in a single table, possible speed loss.

That is incorrect because id's are primary keys of the table and this is what these SQL databases are for. It doesn't have that much of an overhead since it's already indexed.


ID numbers will increase faster and will not give users an accurate representation of the object count for that type of object.

This could be true to a certain extent but user's don't really want to care about the "id" generally. Like your post about URL aliases, we may consider getting rid of it altogether.


Alias's are stored under the same table. As a result you could not have /group/test and event/test as the main alias name at the same time. The auto incrementing set in place helps the situation, but makes one have to deal with more numbers. Separation of the db table would allow for them both to qualify as unique without the auto increment having to take place.

This is untrue as well. You can have /group/test or /event/test because the table stores a composite key which determines if the alias exists for a specific type of object in the table.
·
Thursday, 11 September 2014 02:59
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Mark wrote:

This is untrue as well. You can have /group/test or /event/test because the table stores a composite key which determines if the alias exists for a specific type of object in the table.


Ah, but it is true. You cannot create an alias of "test" for groups because an alias titled "test" exists for an event already exists. Try editing the group page to have an alias of "test". See what it does after saving. It "works" but inserts another number in attempts to make it unique. There are no other group pages. This is because of the event page with an alias of "test".
·
Thursday, 11 September 2014 16:31
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Perhaps ES 1.3.3 might resolve this? Anyways, a huge congrats on ES 1.3! I'd normally say more about my appreciation, but I think your aware of my physical limitations right now.
·
Saturday, 13 September 2014 10:59
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Thank you Josh! We really need these! We have been keyboard warriors for almost the whole week!
·
Sunday, 14 September 2014 00:10
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
I'm pleased to see the permalink issue is now resolved as of ES 1.3.3. I'm feeling better today, so I should write you guys a well thought out message of my appreciation for the work you do.
·
Tuesday, 16 September 2014 03:55
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Thank you Josh
·
Tuesday, 16 September 2014 14:36
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Josh,

I received your email. Had many to sort through as I just got back from my trip. Will be getting back up to speed with ES 1.3.3 later today.

Randall
·
Wednesday, 17 September 2014 02:47
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
I have a group page with arround 2300 users, it loads in 55-60 seconds. Other group pages with 100-150 user loads in 5-6 seconds. Group table must be seperated. Its a big mistake keep together evets, groups etc

db_social_groups
GroupA
user-1
user-2
user-3
Group B
user-4
user-5
user-6

There is no way except this. I cant imagine a group with 5000 users and more....
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:21
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
It looks like your subscription has expired and in order for you to continue requesting for support, you will need an active subscription. If you have already renewed, please let us know so that we can correct this for your account.

Thank you for understanding.
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:42
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Yes, i know, I will renew my subscription soon. I just want to report some bugs. This is not a support request
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:49
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
Are you on the latest version?
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:53
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
No, but it doesnt matter, i checked all changelog
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:55
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
We'll see what we can do about this
·
Tuesday, 04 August 2015 01:58
·
0 Likes
·
0 Votes
·
0 Comments
·
View Full Post