Mikhail Ramendik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > >> >dbmail 2.0+dbmysql: 128 >> >2.0+dbmysql+icfetch_speedup: 184 >> >2.0+dbmysql+icfetch_speedup+db_header_speedup: 193 > >> I'm still very skeptical of making changes to is_fetch in the 2.0.x >> branch. I'm all for putting these in 2.1. Anyone else have any >> thoughts on the invasiveness of these patches and adding them to 2.0? > > Well, I tried to make the invasiveness as little as possible; and there > is a check that falls back to the old behavior in case of anything > unexpected. So I feel this code could be for 2.0.x, but of course let's > wait for independent review.
I haven't read the patch over yet, but I think Paul has (?). Wasn't there a thread about Firebird and/or Outlook problems with this or another patch? Let's make sure that all of those are resolved. > For 2.1 I'm planning a bigger change, although I'm not yet sure it will > work out in the current code framework. I also have an idea for a SEARCH > speedup in 2.1. Paul has a lot of time invested into his ic_fetch refactoring for 2.1, so while some duplication of effort may help you to understand the code better, if there's another project you'd like to put some time into, that would probably be better. Speeding up SEARCH would be great; our current plans for that include a "fastheaders" table set that has the header names in one table and a relation/value table with the message id, header id and header value. There hasn't been any work on this yet, so if you have another idea we're all ears. Aaron --
