![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So, here comes the first fuckuppery of our esteemed Russian leaders:
Apparently, one of![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sophy's friends was over 1000 tags and ended up having their journal disabled until they removed some tags. No warning, nothing. Maybe 6A is still running the joint? Cuz it sure seems like the same ineptitude and lack of forethought that went into their decisions.
Also, 1000 different tags? Really? I mean, I don't really use tags a lot, so it doesn't bother me, but I can see people who do use them using that limit up mighty quick.
And I wonder the reason for that technicality... I wonder if there's a way to do a "pointer" to this data (on disk) instead of storing the strings for each user. I don't know how much more efficient that would be or if it's even feasible. But if they're really that concerned about 1000 words (admittedly, up to 1000 -- using Unicode with 16-bits per character, and an average 5.1 chars/word, which is about 82 megs... OK, I guess that adds up) . That's without any sort of compression or anything. I suppose disk access isn't like memory access and you can't really use a pointer system like you can in memory. But really I can imagine shaving a lot of disk space by having tags in a central location and each entry would just point to the location of the tag, and you can have all your users storing info in a much shorter way.
But really, it's not like the words of an entry are much different. Considering we don't have limits on posts... Is there some other technical reason for a limit on tags? I mean, it's gotta be something other than storage space... I doubt LJ actually has any reason posted as to their logic behind this. But I'll try and dig.
"You can have at most 1000 different tags (each tag counting once, even if you used it for more than one entry). If you have more than 1000, you will be unable to create new tags until you delete enough existing tags to go down below 1000.
You can have at most 1000 different entries using the same tag. If you use that tag and there are 1000 entries or more using that tag already, the oldest entries will be dropped from the list, even though the tag remains on the entries themselves."
http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=226&view=full
Apparently, one of
sophy's friends was over 1000 tags and ended up having their journal disabled until they removed some tags. No warning, nothing. Maybe 6A is still running the joint? Cuz it sure seems like the same ineptitude and lack of forethought that went into their decisions.Also, 1000 different tags? Really? I mean, I don't really use tags a lot, so it doesn't bother me, but I can see people who do use them using that limit up mighty quick.
And I wonder the reason for that technicality... I wonder if there's a way to do a "pointer" to this data (on disk) instead of storing the strings for each user. I don't know how much more efficient that would be or if it's even feasible. But if they're really that concerned about 1000 words (admittedly, up to 1000 -- using Unicode with 16-bits per character, and an average 5.1 chars/word, which is about 82 megs... OK, I guess that adds up) . That's without any sort of compression or anything. I suppose disk access isn't like memory access and you can't really use a pointer system like you can in memory. But really I can imagine shaving a lot of disk space by having tags in a central location and each entry would just point to the location of the tag, and you can have all your users storing info in a much shorter way.
But really, it's not like the words of an entry are much different. Considering we don't have limits on posts... Is there some other technical reason for a limit on tags? I mean, it's gotta be something other than storage space... I doubt LJ actually has any reason posted as to their logic behind this. But I'll try and dig.
Tags:
