Yes, very major. Drew Northup, N1XIM
> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul J Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2004 3:01 AM > To: DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist > Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Two bottlenecks in db_getmailbox > > > Drew, > > Indeed, transactions are a recent addition to the codebase given > the required > support for non-transactional backends (myisam). > > At present the needed calls are in place, but they are only used > by pipelined > insertion (dbmail-lmtp/dbmail-smtp). > > A systematic rollout of transactional support is another major > speedup waiting > to happen. > > > Drew Northup wrote: > > What, you are using InnoDB tables without transactions? > > > > Drew Northup, N1XIM > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Paul J Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, October 25, 2004 4:18 PM > >>To: Jesse Norell; DBMAIL Developers Mailinglist > >>Subject: Re: [Dbmail-dev] Two bottlenecks in db_getmailbox > >> > >> > >> > >>Ok Jesse, thanks for the pointer. > >> > >>Looks like db_imap_append uses its own version of the insertion > >>logic and still inserts messages with empty > >>unique_ids during the insertion sequence. That should be fixed, > >>if only be wrapping this in a transaction. > >>Come to think of it, wouldn't transactions actually do? > >> > >>db_copymsg looks ok to me. > >> > >> > >>Jesse Norell wrote: > >> > >>>>>And the second query changed to: [SELECT message_idnr, seen_flag, > >>>>>recent_flag FROM dbmail_messages WHERE mailbox_idnr = '9' > AND status < > >>>>>'2' AND length(unique_id) > 0 ORDER BY message_idnr ASC] > >>>> > >>>>unique_id!='' should go where not absolutely required. > >>>> > >>>>Any objections to removing that particular restraint from the code? > >>>> > >>>>I really don't know how that one ever got in. If anyone > happens to know, > >>> > >>>please speak or be silent for ever > >>> > >>> > >>>>more :-) In my database there are no messages with an empty > >> > >>unique_id. And > >> > >>>there shouldn't be. Such sanity > >>> > >>> > >>>>checks shouldn't hog the real-time performance, and be deferred to > >>> > >>>asynchronous maintenance like dbmail-util. > >>> > >>> > >>> Obviously from my last post, I'm not through my inbox yet... > >>>As I mentioned, in at least one place in old (1.x) dbmail mail > insertion > >>>(from memory, it seemed to be in the imap code, with a copy command > >>>or somesuch) the status flag was not used to mark a message that > >>>wasn't yet fully inserted (I think everywhere else the status was set > >>>to 5 or something) - so everywhere that checked a message status also > >>>got addended with an "AND unique_id != ''" clause and probably at some > >>>later point someone looked at indexes in use and added unique_id to > >>>a lot of them. > >>> > >>> > >>>-- > >>>Jesse Norell > >>> > >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] is not my email address; > >>>change "administrator" to my first name. > >>>-- > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Dbmail-dev mailing list > >>>Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org > >>>http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >> ________________________________________________________________ > >> Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dbmail-dev mailing list > > Dbmail-dev@dbmail.org > > http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev > > > > -- > ________________________________________________________________ > Paul Stevens [EMAIL PROTECTED] > NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 > The Netherlands_______________________________________www.nfg.nl > >
