X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25F959DC9E1 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:51:17 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78423-05 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:51:12 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.envyfinancial.com (unknown [206.248.142.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC92D9DC9F3 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:51:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.envyfinancial.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43F641CDC2; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail.envyfinancial.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mark.mielke.cc [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 09627-09; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by mail.envyfinancial.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 28A711CDD7; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:50:17 -0500 From: mark@mark.mielke.cc To: Harry Jackson Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Suspending SELECTs Message-ID: <20060118165017.GA10026@mark.mielke.cc> References: <43CB71AC.20203@barettadeit.com> <9766.1137433907@sss.pgh.pa.us> <43CD4BD0.9090807@barettadeit.com> <20060117211259.GA13926@mark.mielke.cc> <43CE030E.1070707@barettadeit.com> <20060118143024.GA8402@mark.mielke.cc> <43CE5AC7.50407@barettadeit.com> <45b42ce40601180741q34553beeu134da075987e8232@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45b42ce40601180741q34553beeu134da075987e8232@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.envyfinancial.com X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.65 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, NO_REAL_NAME=0.55] X-Spam-Score: 0.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/299 X-Sequence-Number: 16777 On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 03:41:57PM +0000, Harry Jackson wrote: > There are various reason why google might want to limit the search > result returned ie to encourage people to narrow their search. Prevent > screen scrapers from hitting them really hard blah blah. Perhaps less > than 0.00000001% of real users (not scrapers) actually dig down to the > 10th page so whats the point. I recall a day when google crashed, apparently due to a Windows virus that would use google to obtain email addresses. As an unsubstantiated theory - this may have involved many, many clients, all accessing search page results beyond the first page. I don't see google optimizing for the multiple page scenario. Most people (as I think you agree above), are happy with the first or second page, and they are gone. Keeping a cursor for these people as anything more than an offset into search criteria, would not be useful. Cheers, -- mark@mielke.cc / markm@ncf.ca / markm@nortel.com __________________________ . . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder |\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ | | | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them... http://mark.mielke.cc/