SQL query to build up the conversation trees in the cacheNow comes the real tricky part, how do I exclude completely read threads?
# I am the Watcher. I am your guide through this vast new twtiverse. # # Usage: # https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/users View list of users and latest twt date. # https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/twt View all twts. # https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/mentions?uri=:uri View all mentions for uri. # https://watcher.sour.is/api/plain/conv/:hash View all twts for a conversation subject. # # Options: # uri Filter to show a specific users twts. # offset Start index for quey. # limit Count of items to return (going back in time). # # twt range = 1 16 # self = https://watcher.sour.is/conv/l3ifp4a
SQL query to build up the conversation trees in the cacheEXPLAIN QUERY PLAN I was able to create two indices, to avoid some table scans:str_col <> '' I now use str_col > '' to allow the use of an index.yarnd's cache became so complicated really. I mean it's a bunch of maps and lists that is recalculated every ~5m. I don't know of any better way to do this right now, but maybe one day I'll figure out a better way to represent the same information that is displayed today that works reasonably well.~
yarnd's cache became so complicated really. I mean it's a bunch of maps and lists that is recalculated every ~5m. I don't know of any better way to do this right now, but maybe one day I'll figure out a better way to represent the same information that is displayed today that works reasonably well.~
subject = '' for the existing conversation roots with subject > ''. Somehow, my brain must have read subject <> ''. That equality check should not have been touched at all. I just updated the updated archive for anyone who is interested to follow along: https://lyse.isobeef.org/tmp/tt2cache.tar.bz2 (151.1Â KiB)
completeConversationRead flag to true got now in my way, this caused a conversation to be removed. Simply deleting all the code around that flag solved it.min(created_at). Now that I optimized this to only take unread messages into consideration in the first place, I do not necessarily see the smallest child anymore (when it's already read), so the timestamp is then moved forward to the next oldest unread reply. As I do not care too much about an accurate timestamp for something made up, I just adjusted my test case accordingly. Good enough for me. :-)