Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. "
Tut, tut. Schoolboy error. Crap programming in a crap language.
There's no other excuse.
You've an I/O bound system, not processor bound. Code more defensively, and less for speed. And in future, do proper analysis before making assumptions.
Tut, tut. Schoolboy error. Crap programming in a crap language.
There's no other excuse.
You've an I/O bound system, not processor bound. Code more defensively, and less for speed. And in future, do proper analysis before making assumptions.
HTH
Did not expect (2 years ago when it was coded) that we'd have URLs with more than 2 billion backlinks in our index - we've got 12 now out of a trillion+
Did not expect (2 years ago when it was coded) that we'd have URLs with more than 2 billion backlinks in our index - we've got 12 now out of a trillion+
Aha! There's your problem. Americanisms.
You know I have been banging on about your spelling of "centre" all week? Well, now you've gone and fallen over because you've used nasty American billions.
If you'd been using proper British billions, you'd be able to handle loads more backlinks.
Hang on, 2 thousand million? Not 4 thousand million? You're not using signed integers, are you? Do many URLs have a negative number of backlinks?
Comment