More "Sponsor" Stupidity



  • We recently deployed a new system, designed to crunch many millions of records each day. For speed, it loads and caches a large amount of reference data, and then "pages" through the data a few thousand records at a time. Currently, it's only crunching a few thousand records daily. Yesterday, due to unrelated events, our transaction volume was halved. Naturally, the run time became {3 minute start up time} + {sub second run time}/2. The yahoo in charge (think Sponsor - no longer above me in any way) couldn't understand why it took the same time to process n/2 records as it took to process n records. I explained it to him. He didn't understand. I drew him a picture. He still didn't understand. I told him to have faith in those entrusted to do the work, laughed and walked away. As I turned the corner into the hall, he yelled to me: "Perl wouldn't have this problem!"

    There are just sooo many things wrong with his parting shot - my head hurts!

    Edit: BTW: not knocking Perl in any way - just his parting shot...



  • @snoofle said:

    We recently deployed a new system, designed to crunch many millions of records each day. For speed, it loads and caches a large amount of reference data, and then "pages" through the data a few thousand records at a time. Currently, it's only crunching a few thousand records daily. Yesterday, due to unrelated events, our transaction volume was halved. Naturally, the run time became {3 minute start up time} + {sub second run time}/2. The yahoo in charge (think Sponsor - no longer above me in any way) couldn't understand why it took the same time to process n/2 records as it took to process n records. I explained it to him. He didn't understand. I drew him a picture. He still didn't understand. I told him to have faith in those entrusted to do the work, laughed and walked away. As I turned the corner into the hall, he yelled to me: "Perl wouldn't have this problem!"

    There are just sooo many things wrong with his parting shot - my head hurts!

     

    Technically, moving to a slower programming language would provide a better improvement in time to run.  A {sub second run time}/2 improvement looks pathetic compared to an improvement of {run time long enough to be used for clocking the speed of glaciers}/2.



  • A sleep command would solve this problem... 



  • @DOA said:

    A sleep command would solve this problem...

    Only if it's prefaced with "Put to" and applied to the Sponsor.



  • @snoofle said:

    @DOA said:
    A sleep command would solve this problem...

    Only if it's prefaced with "Put to" and applied to the Sponsor.

     

    Why is everyone so oblivious to the importance of desktop sleep?



  • Surely you meant:

    Why is everyone so oblivious to the implementation of desktop sleep?

     

    :)



  • @dlikhten said:

    Why is everyone so oblivious to the importance of desktop sleep?

    Because the hot topic at the moment is desktop search, not desktop sleep. Come on, desktop sleep doesn't even involve video!!!



  • @RayS said:

    Because the hot topic at the moment is desktop search, not desktop sleep. Come on, desktop sleep doesn't even involve random video!!!
     

    Fixed that for you.



  • @RayS said:

    @dlikhten said:

    Why is everyone so oblivious to the importance of desktop sleep?

    Because the hot topic at the moment is desktop search, not desktop sleep. Come on, desktop sleep doesn't even involve video!!!
     

    I'll upload one tonight...



  • @dlikhten said:

    @RayS said:

    Because the hot topic at the moment is desktop search, not desktop sleep. Come on, desktop sleep doesn't even involve video!!!
     

    I'll upload one tonight...

    I hope it has sacred stones in it.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.