PitHub
HomeExplore
New pit
MCP serverSave straight from your agent
About usHow it worksFAQBlogContact us
Sign in
PitHub
Sign in
HomeExploreCreateSign in

Explore

Loading…

Explore

Tagged #performance

ActiveNewMost usedRecommended
AllAI & Prompt Engineering324Engineering176Data & Analytics89Product4Design28Sales2Marketing4Finance
#performanceClear filters
FEFelix Silva@felixsilva·2w ago

The cache invalidation without folklore prompt I actually kept

This started as a messy question about cache invalidation without folklore. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Felix Silva

Help me define keys, freshness, and invalidation from actual read and write paths. Context: - Goal: [what a good result lets me do] - Current situation: [paste notes, draft, data, or constraints] - Audience: [who will use the result] - Deadline or limit: [time, budget, tools, length] Before answering, ask up to three questions only if the answers would materially change your recommendation. Otherw

ChatGPTgpt-5

This is usable as written. The important parts are the definition of done, the instruction to expose assumptions, and the request for a smallest test. For cache invalidation without folklore, I would start with these checks: - Reproduce the failure before changing code - Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - Write the rollback before deployment If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages
3303k
ANAnika Kim@anikakim·3w ago

The checklist I use for Postgres query tuning

Not magic wording, just enough context and a clear definition of done. Easy to adapt.

Anika Kim

I am stuck on Postgres query tuning. I need to read an EXPLAIN plan and choose the smallest index or query change that matters, but my current attempt is getting vague and too big. What would you check first?

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

First, shrink the decision. Do not solve the whole subject at once. 1. Reproduce the failure before changing code. 2. Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis. 3. Write the rollback before deployment. Write down the result you need by the end of this session. Then choose one input you trust and make a first pass that can be checked. If that pass fails, you will know which assumption to revisit instead of starting over.

Show all 3 messages
3303.8k
FEFelix Silva@felixsilva·4w ago

A smaller way to tackle cache invalidation without folklore

Sharing the wording because it gave me something I could check instead of a confident wall of text.

Felix Silva

For cache invalidation without folklore, should I build a complete plan first or test one small slice? I have limited time and I do not want throwaway work.

ChatGPTgpt-5

Test one slice, but choose a slice that crosses the riskiest part of the problem. A tiny easy demo will only prove the easy part. Use this decision rule: - If reversing the choice is cheap, try it. - If the choice locks in data, money, or other people’s time, write the full decision first. - If uncertainty is concentrated in one step, test that step before planning around it. For cache invalidation without folklore, make the first test produce evidence you can compare, not just something that looks complete.

Show all 3 messages
3401.7k
40404 brain not found@404_brain_not_found·2w ago

Why Postgres ignored my index (and the ANALYZE that fixed it)

A 40-second query that should have been 8ms. The plan was right; the statistics were four months stale.

404 brain not found

This query does a seq scan on a 40M row table even though there's an index on `created_at`: ```sql select * from events where created_at > now() - interval '1 hour' order by created_at desc limit 100; ```

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

Get the plan with real numbers first: ```sql explain (analyze, buffers) select * from events where created_at > now() - interval '1 hour' order by created_at desc limit 100; ``` The thing to compare is `rows=` (the estimate) against `actual rows=`. If the planner thinks the predicate matches millions of rows, a seq scan is the *correct* choice given what it believes — the bug is in what it believes, not in how it decided. On an append-only events table this is usually stale statistics: the planner's histogram thinks the newest `created_at` is months old, so "the last hour" looks like it covers

Show all 4 messages
410537
ANAnika Kim@anikakim·1mo ago

Postgres query tuning: the version with actual constraints

I kept the useful constraints and dropped the role-play. It works better when the missing details are stated plainly.

Anika Kim

Give me a short checklist for Postgres query tuning. I want something I can run before I call the work done.

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

Use this pass: - [ ] The goal is one sentence and names the user or decision - [ ] Inputs are current, relevant, and traceable - [ ] Assumptions are visible - [ ] Reproduce the failure before changing code - [ ] Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - [ ] Write the rollback before deployment - [ ] One failure case has been tested - [ ] The next owner and next action are clear If you cannot check an item, mark it unknown. Do not quietly treat unknown as done.

Show all 3 messages
340840
DIdivs before dawn@divs_before_dawn·2w ago

Finding the Suspense waterfall that added 900ms to our LCP

GPT-5 talked me through the React DevTools profile. The culprit was an await in a layout, not the page.

divs before dawn

LCP went from 1.1s to 2.0s after we adopted the app router. Bundle size barely moved. Where is the time going?

ChatGPTgpt-5

Bundle size being flat while LCP regresses points at a **request waterfall** rather than a payload problem. In the app router the usual cause is an `await` sitting in a layout. Layouts render before the pages nested inside them. If your root layout awaits anything, every page underneath waits for it before *starting* its own fetch — serially, not in parallel. Check your `layout.tsx` files first, outermost in. You're looking for any `await` that isn't wrapped in a Suspense boundary.

Show all 4 messages
400291
ANAnika Kim@anikakim·3mo ago

The Postgres query tuning prompt I actually kept

I kept the useful constraints and dropped the role-play. It works better when the missing details are stated plainly.

Anika Kim

Help me read an EXPLAIN plan and choose the smallest index or query change that matters. Context: - Goal: [what a good result lets me do] - Current situation: [paste notes, draft, data, or constraints] - Audience: [who will use the result] - Deadline or limit: [time, budget, tools, length] Before answering, ask up to three questions only if the answers would materially change your recommendation.

ChatGPTgpt-5

This is usable as written. The important parts are the definition of done, the instruction to expose assumptions, and the request for a smallest test. For Postgres query tuning, I would start with these checks: - Reproduce the failure before changing code - Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - Write the rollback before deployment If you share real material, remove anything private first and replace bracketed fields with concrete details.

Show all 3 messages
3403.7k
FEFelix Silva@felixsilva·2mo ago

The checklist I use for cache invalidation without folklore

The useful bit was asking for trade-offs and a smallest test before committing to a full plan.

Felix Silva

I am stuck on cache invalidation without folklore. I need to define keys, freshness, and invalidation from actual read and write paths, but my current attempt is getting vague and too big. What would you check first?

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

First, shrink the decision. Do not solve the whole subject at once. 1. Reproduce the failure before changing code. 2. Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis. 3. Write the rollback before deployment. Write down the result you need by the end of this session. Then choose one input you trust and make a first pass that can be checked. If that pass fails, you will know which assumption to revisit instead of starting over.

Show all 3 messages
3401.6k
ANAnika Kim@anikakim·3mo ago

A smaller way to tackle Postgres query tuning

The first answers were broad enough to be useless. This version asks for assumptions, evidence, and a next step.

Anika Kim

For Postgres query tuning, should I build a complete plan first or test one small slice? I have limited time and I do not want throwaway work.

ChatGPTgpt-5

Test one slice, but choose a slice that crosses the riskiest part of the problem. A tiny easy demo will only prove the easy part. Use this decision rule: - If reversing the choice is cheap, try it. - If the choice locks in data, money, or other people’s time, write the full decision first. - If uncertainty is concentrated in one step, test that step before planning around it. For Postgres query tuning, make the first test produce evidence you can compare, not just something that looks complete.

Show all 3 messages
3303.7k
FEFelix Silva@felixsilva·3mo ago

I asked Gemini for a second opinion on cache invalidation without folklore

A compact prompt and the response it produced. Replace the bracketed parts with your own details.

Felix Silva

Be blunt about my plan for cache invalidation without folklore. I am going to collect everything, ask for a polished answer, and fix details later. What is likely to go wrong?

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Three things. - “Everything” has no boundary, so weak inputs and strong inputs will be treated alike. - A polished answer can hide missing evidence. Ask for gaps and assumptions before prose. - “Fix details later” means there is no acceptance test now. A safer sequence is: define the decision, choose the minimum trusted inputs, make an ugly first pass, check it, then polish. For this task, keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis.

Show all 3 messages
3303.1k
FEFelix Silva@felixsilva·2mo ago

cache invalidation without folklore: the version with actual constraints

This started as a messy question about cache invalidation without folklore. The follow-up made the answer practical.

Felix Silva

Give me a short checklist for cache invalidation without folklore. I want something I can run before I call the work done.

Claudeclaude-opus-4.5

Use this pass: - [ ] The goal is one sentence and names the user or decision - [ ] Inputs are current, relevant, and traceable - [ ] Assumptions are visible - [ ] Reproduce the failure before changing code - [ ] Keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis - [ ] Write the rollback before deployment - [ ] One failure case has been tested - [ ] The next owner and next action are clear If you cannot check an item, mark it unknown. Do not quietly treat unknown as done.

Show all 3 messages
3301.7k
ANAnika Kim@anikakim·2mo ago

I asked Gemini for a second opinion on Postgres query tuning

I wanted help with Postgres query tuning without pretending the model knew facts I had not provided.

Anika Kim

Be blunt about my plan for Postgres query tuning. I am going to collect everything, ask for a polished answer, and fix details later. What is likely to go wrong?

Geminigemini-2.5-pro

Three things. - “Everything” has no boundary, so weak inputs and strong inputs will be treated alike. - A polished answer can hide missing evidence. Ask for gaps and assumptions before prose. - “Fix details later” means there is no acceptance test now. A safer sequence is: define the decision, choose the minimum trusted inputs, make an ugly first pass, check it, then polish. For this task, keep the patch smaller than the diagnosis.

Show all 3 messages
340954

Browse by tag

#ai314#chatgpt211#claude208#gemini208#prompting182#agents174#context-engineering172#coding160
24
Strategy31
Operations4
Customer Success3
People & Recruiting4
Security & Compliance8
Legal2
Other Professional1
#debugging106
#software-learning100
#data85
#analysis55
#statistics55
#202650
#data-literacy50
#prompt-template50
#trending-questions50
#business25
#design25
#testing25
#automation21
#finance21
#cash-flow16
#research16