If the query uses the index, then the on the fly tsvector rechecks are only on the matches and the benchmark queries have LIMIT 10, so few rechecks right?
Edit: yes but the query predicates have conditions on 2 gin indexes, so I guess the planner chooses to recheck all the matches for one index first even though it could avoid lots of work by rechecking row-wise
Also, 10M input token context is insane!
EDIT: https://huggingface.co/meta-llama/Llama-3.1-405B is BF16 so yes, it seems training in FP8 is new.
At one time I thought I read that there was a project to embed Kuzu into DuckDB, but bringing a vector store natively into kuzu sounds even better.
The reason to have a separate system that correctly calls getElementById() is to avoid this issue.
So, it's actually a _less_ brittle mechanism that doesn't rely on legacy mechanisms and lacks the surprises that come with that.
But I do think the legacy browser behavior with the ID attribute as window properties is very brittle for the reasons you suggest
const $id = new Proxy({}, {
// get element from cache, or from DOM
get: (tgt, k, r) => (tgt[k] || ((r = document.getElementById(k)) && (tgt[k] = r))),
// prevent programming errors
set: () => $throw(`Attempt to overwrite id cache key!`)
});
It's nice to be able to refer to elements by property name, so: <div id="thing"></div>
Is reachable with: $id.thing
And, since the underlying structure is just an object, you can still enumerate it with Object.keys, which can sometimes be a useful debugging aid and general catalog of accessed elements.Anyways.. Proxy is a wildly underappreciated and used class in JavaScript.
Edit: My tone may have indicated that parent's solution was brittle. It's not!
It doesn't surprise me that people aren't seeking out book reviews on the AP website or app—I don't think AP is particularly associated with reviews, maybe deliberately because they've historically been read in local papers that don't emphasize the AP sourcing, so people wanting reviews from a national source probably go to NYT, WaPo, WSJ, the New Yorker, etc. first.
This is a tangent, but I wonder if they feel that they are just creating LLM training data and that few readers (even of Sunday papers) will actually read their reviews.