[development] Use revisions to replace previews
kreynen at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 16:42:44 UTC 2007
No one is saying saving the previews to the database doesn't create some
overhead. What I'm saying that if this is done right, the overhead would be
worth. Word using disk space and processing cycles to autosave versions of
my work in progress. I wouldn't dream of turning that feature off.
Add autosave (http://drupal.org/project/autosave) to the modules this change
will likely impact.
A "ballooning" revision counter number doesn't necessarily mean there are
more rows in the revision table. It just means for users who don't use
revisions, the node_nid and node_revisions_vid in the sequence table
wouldn't be in synch. You could have a small site with 50 node and
node_nid 50 would be displaying body content from node_revisions_vid
Bigger number in the join, but it doesn't change the performance or
necessarily mean that all 136,234,645,768 revisions have been saved.
On 6/8/07, Morbus Iff <morbus at disobey.com> wrote:
> >> This is pretty much the way I work - I could easily spend 30
> >> previews before I finish what I consider my first draft of a node.
> >> I would hate to waste 30 revisions (and the overhead) for stuff
> > That's why it was suggested to automatically delete revisions that
> > were used for previews. Not that it would become elegant code, but
> > that would at least get rid of the overhead.
> How does that reduce the overhead, or keep the revision counter from
> ballooning ridiculously? I'm still "wasting" the revisions, whether
> they're active or not.
> Morbus Iff ( i still fail to see what this has to do with morocco )
> Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779
> Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/
> aim: akaMorbus / skype: morbusiff / icq: 2927491 / jabber.org: morbus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the development