List traffic
in [PgSql]
|
Prev: Patch for PKST timezone
Next: [HACKERS] SHARE locks vs. DELETE in SERIALIZABLE mode (Was: Partitioning/inherited tables vs FKs)
From: Yeb Havinga on 14 May 2010 03:13 Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Thu, 13 May 2010, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> Excerpts from Yeb Havinga's message of jue may 13 15:06:53 -0400 2010: >> >>> My $0.02 - I like the whole 'don't sort, search' (or how did they call >>> it?) just let the inbox fill up, google is fast enough. What would be >>> really interesting is to have some extra 'tags/headers' added to the >>> emails (document classification with e.g. self organizing map/kohonen), >>> so my local filters could make labels based on that, instead of perhaps >>> badly spelled keywords in subjects or message body. > > I missed this when I read it the first time .. all list email does > have an X-Mailing-List header added so that you can label based on > list itself ... is that what you mean, or are you thinking of > something else entirely? Something else: if automatic classification of articles was in place, there would be need of fewer mailing lists, depending on the quality of the classification. IMHO the problem of handling the big volume of the lists is not solved by splitting into more, since it does not decrease the amount of posts that are interesting from the subscribers perspective. It would only mean that posters are more likely to make mistakes, a possible increase in crossposts or 'my question was not answered there so now I try here' on the sender part, and at the subscriber side bigger chance to miss interesting articles. That my current mailing list setup works for me supports this claim; I did not subscribe to less lists, but managed to decrease the ms spent at 'handling' to an amount that became workable. Though I do not believe algorithmic article classification/ranking to provide a 100% fool proof filter, it might help decreasing the "ms spent per article" more. Take a look at how "carrot2" clusters results from the query "postgresql prepared transactions site:postgresql.org" - http://search.carrot2.org/stable/search?source=web&view=tree&skin=fancy-compact&query=postgresql+prepared+transactions+site%3Apostgresql.org&results=100&algorithm=lingo&EToolsDocumentSource.country=ALL&EToolsDocumentSource.language=ENGLISH&EToolsDocumentSource.safeSearch=false I wonder if a cluster algorithm could tag articles with (multiple) keywords, e.g. 'hackers','prepared transaction','dba' etc etc. I could then make filters or ranking on: hackers AND optimizer -> +10. regards, Yeb Havinga -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" on 14 May 2010 10:05 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we > can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether? Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting is often desirable. If we had a clearer distinction of list topics, I might support such a move, but we don't, so I can't. > ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better", > why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first > place? What would you have us do? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg(a)turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005141005 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkvtWKwACgkQvJuQZxSWSsimYACgrPesGj6yxfo49c6T1PPLrKir oPoAn0b81VrrrqAozXnPXV/5vzlAuxr1 =11EB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" on 14 May 2010 10:10 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 > There is no reason why advocacy can't happen on general. Theoretically > www could be on hackers (although I do see the point of a separate > list). I don't feel as strong about -advocacy being removed, but we certainly can fold in -sql and -admin. Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into -general as a first step? - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg(a)turnstep.com End Point Corporation http://www.endpoint.com/ PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201005141009 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkvtWbgACgkQvJuQZxSWSsjfAQCg0s9GxUIKnxHjbAWd2XOWxYpk OZMAni62Fpj/PPTE9/qFUNw08une4YgT =OyI0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Kevin Grittner" on 14 May 2010 10:21 "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(a)turnstep.com> wrote: > Would anyone argue against rolling those two (sql and admin) into > -general as a first step? At the risk of repeating myself, I won't be able to keep up with the traffic of the combined list; so rather than read 100% of the messages from a smaller set, I'll need to pick and choose based on subject line or some such. I get the impression that other people, who read different subsets of the lists, will be forced to a similar change. That may result in either some posts "slipping through the cracks" or in increasing the burden of responding to the posts for those brave few who wade through them all. Personally, I'm not convince that merging current lists will solve more problems than it will create. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
From: "Marc G. Fournier" on 14 May 2010 10:38
On Fri, 14 May 2010, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: RIPEMD160 > > >> ... is there a reason why, other the fact that we don't do now, that we >> can't just put in a restriction against cross posting altogether? > > Because that would be shooting ourselves in the foot. Cross-posting > is often desirable. If we had a clearer distinction of list topics, I > might support such a move, but we don't, so I can't. But, its the cross-posting, IMHO, that reduces the distinction ... >> ... and, for those that have been here awhile, who "should know better", >> why isn't there any self-management of this sort of stuff in the first >> place? > > What would you have us do? Redirect users ... if user sends a query performance related question to -general, respond back with -general as the CC, To as -performance and a Reply-To header of -performance ... that way those on -general know that its been redirected, but *hopefully* users replying will honor the -performance redirect ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A. scrappy(a)hub.org http://www.hub.org Yahoo:yscrappy Skype: hub.org ICQ:7615664 MSN:scrappy(a)hub.org -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers |