Armorsmith Archive
Thread: Thunderheart, would these two simple fixes solve SOE's databse problems? No flame, a sincere id
just imagine the number of transactions if each creature is nothing more than a database entry, each time someone deals damage to a creature it has to be updated in the database - compared to a system where a creature is just represented by an instance of some class, there would be much less transactions with the database.
it is all a matter of consistence and persistance, which information is needed to be safe from serverdowns, software failures and other things.
it seems like the programmers have chosen the safe route of saving as much as possible in the database, that would explain their problems with the database performance - they probably even keep deleted items and such things until the next restart, perhaps even longer.
Andymantium wrote:
Bey wrote:...
I really dont see how a few hundred, or even thousand, items per user can be a problem on a properly indexed database with a sensible table setup.
...
Well, you see...edit: oh great post by the way..did you try posting this in the Core forums?Message Edited by Andymantium on 03-10-2004 08:17 AM
There's an old post somewhere, came out around the time they borked us on housing storage....
they projected 250-500 items per user when they designed the database.. ROFL I've got that beat easily, over 1K items, and I'm not even one of the best stocked AS's around...
if identical looted items stacked, and crates came out of the factories in 1K capacities, and I could re-stack my exisiting crates... oh the space I would save....
Great idea!! hope SOE considers something like this..
Incredibly smart and simple idea. We can discuss the merits of wether it saves room/increases speed etc...etc.
But even if it does nothing to help its a crafters dream.
/sign
/bump
I have to say, incredible.
As someone who's droids take from 8-35 or more subcomponents in each droid, it's an absolute nightmare.
Is it good for the database for me to have a row of houses that just store backpacks of crates?
Or, is it keeping me interested in the game for the long haul to make my wrist and fingers go numb transfering crate after crate from bank to factory to house to factory....make me work for it, but in it's current state it's rather absurd. Yes, it's better than when we had to empty crates before and put singles in factories as subcomponents, but for anyone that does volume this is a huge issue.
My factories now have maintainance paid up months in advance - I too accidentally lost a store of stuff due to maintainance awhile back. It was my fault, I didn't complain - but it just struck me that I was by some defintions "exploiting" factories by using them for storage when I wasn't trying to store an unreasonable amount of stuff; just enough to function.
People aren't asking to be huge packrats - just being able to manage large factory runs without having to set down a new house every time just so you can switch the items in and out.
I really hope this gets the attention it deserves.
Audio
Message Edited by AudioOrgana on 03-13-2004 08:50 PM
Great idea.
But I wonder if the devs would feel that this is hurting the economy of the game and to hell with the database. One of the reasons they are changing crafting is supposedly to help the economy. But even if the best comp in the game was 50% people would still pay hundreds of thousands of credits for it. Anything to have an edge. So I don't see how the craft change helps.
same may go for the database issue. They may see a stack of a million or more somehow hurting the economy and say no to the idea.