No Youtube video will ever be watched more than 2,147,483,647 times...
-
Our attempts to cause an integer overflow in /t/1000 may not be in vain yet. Gangnam Style has reached the magic number of views, and forced Youtube to change to using 64-bit integers to track the number of views on videos
-
Sigh. It had to be that shit.
-
Also in this thread: http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/psy-broke-youtube/5260
-
This is the internet. Every post is a repost!
-
No Youtube video post will ever be posted more than 2,147,483,647 times...
-
Our attempts to cause an integer overflow in /t/1000 may not be in vain yet.
I want to see that bug report on meta.d...
Topic: big number of posts in topic causes integer overflow issues
@codinghorror, post:-1, topic:-1 said:
What the fuck.
-
I'd expect Jeff to personally give everyone who participated in the topic a badger or something else to commemorate the achievement
-
That would be a ton of badgers.
He'd have to leave it looping for hours before getting so many!
-
-
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/psy-broke-youtube/5260
already reported here today.
;-)
Already reported here today:
http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/no-youtube-video-will-ever-be-watched-more-than-2-147-483-647-times/5270/3?u=spencer
;-)
-
-
Certainly there's no possible way a video could be watched more than 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 times, is there?
Someone needs to get started on a watcher bot.
-
-
I wonder if they store the count as a value that gets incremented on every page load, or if every view is logged as a new database row. If it's the latter, view counting is more reliable, but they're in for a world of hurt.
Then again, I don't seem to remember Google being big fans of RDBMS....
-
-
I wonder if they store the count as a value that gets incremented on every page load, or if every view is logged as a new database row. If it's the latter, view counting is more reliable, but they're in for a world of hurt.
Then again, I don't seem to remember Google being big fans of RDBMS....
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM [VideoViews] WHERE [VideoId]=blah
and store it in an Int32
-
yeah. i'm not messign with google
This fucker right here is why I hate videos. 9 and 3/4 minutes? Just fucking write it. It's probably a 3-sentence explanation!
-
Well, he said a "log," which could be a flat file, table, etc. It sounds like they store a significant amount of information about an individual view, if they're going to apply all the heuristics that they hint at.
The fact that they aim for eventual consistency is interesting (mainly because I've also worked on replication systems that had to be consistent a lot sooner).
SELECT COUNT(*) FROM [VideoViews] WHERE [VideoId]=blah and store it in an Int32
There's the problem.
COUNT_BIG()
-
wtf? All they had to do was make it unsigned int and get another year of mileage before they scrap the database and use text files.
-
Argh, Hanzo'd.
My very first thought was "Why a signed int? Are they expecting videos to be watched a negative number of times?"
-
My very first thought was "Why a signed int? Are they expecting videos to be watched a negative number of times?"
I'd like to see the number of views being expressed as a float so that partial views can be recorded.
-
How about storing it as a string, so if there are "1<<32 buttered toast salad 💩" views, they can represent that losslessly?
-
I was thinking this myself. Using a varchar(255), that's a 255 digit number (and you get more out of it if you're willing to store it as a hexadecimal, hexatrigesimal or duosexagesimal number in the string)
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
I'd like to see the number of views being expressed as a float so that partial views can be recorded.
How about storing it as a string, so if there are "1<<32 buttered toast salad 💩" views, they can represent that losslessly?I didn't join this IT forum to have my suggestions mocked like this
-
- There is no such a thing as partial view. it is either you watched the video or you didn't.
- Youtube does collect stats on duration of the watch.
Since youtube consider views as currency there is another reason why not to use floats
-
Also in this thread: http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/psy-broke-youtube/5260
Fuck. Slashdot is leaking into TDWTF again. /blakey
-
I didn't join this IT forum to have my suggestions mocked like this
What sort of mocking did you imagine?
-
-
Better that than the 2nd most viewed video.
Is it bad that I expected the 2nd most viewed video to be Rebecca Black's Friday*?
*It makes a better troll video than Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up
-
Read rule number 2.
Read it again.
Look closely at the two graphs.
Internalize that knowledge
-
Better that than the 2nd most viewed video
The only decent song with that tune is this.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
I didn't join this IT forum to have my suggestions mocked like this
What sort of mocking did you imagine?
Imaginary mocking
-
I must admit, I've watched it myself. As music videos go these days, it's awesome!
What a cunning ploy to inject life back into a one hit wonder that's last years news.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yf-vK_qzxLk&start=9s
Presenting Gangnam Style by PSY! This addictive viral video seemed like the perfect song to cover, since it's relatively simple and incredibly fun. For those of you who don't know, the song "Gangnam Style" is about a region in Korea that is quite posh and elegant during the day, but during the night is a huge party. The region Gangnam could be compared to the US region of Beverly Hills, CA.
This cover was made with 4 baritone saxophones, all played by me. The baritone sax (or bari for short) is pitched one octave lower than the alto sax. I transcribed the music for Gangnam Style by ear and arranged it for 4 bari saxes.
-
Imaginary mocking
Here is a chart rating your ideas:
NB: the roots are the ideas that might be good
-
I was thinking this myself. Using a varchar(255), that's a 255 digit number (and you get more out of it if you're willing to store it as a hexadecimal, hexatrigesimal or duosexagesimal number in the string)
If you use Base85, you can fit 1632 bits equivalent in that varchar(255). That's a fairly big number.
-
if you can stor arbitrary bytes in a varchar (which IIRC you can) you could store 8*255 bits of information in that space... which has a maximum value of ~ 1.26x10^614
-
if you can stor arbitrary bytes in a varchar (which IIRC you can)
It depends on the database. If the DB supports varbinary, putting arbitrary bytes in a varchar is a bad idea. The problem isn't usually the DB itself so much as the client layer. (The database might also try to do encoding management and complex collation support for you in textual fields, whereas binary fields will be left completely alone.)
-