Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Aaron Stone wrote: >> Mikhail Ramendik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>>>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. > > My split-up and reorganization of ic_fetch returns requested items in a > fixed order, as opposed to the requested order like before. My guess is > that outlook doesn't like this very much. I can't investigate today > however, since my xp box's terminal-server is dead, and I don't have > physical access atm. Ok, but as long as the problem is with 2.1.cvs and not 2.0, it's not on the list of things to check for Mikhail's icfetch_speedup. [snip] >> I think that 2.1 should require MySQL 4.1, which means sub-selects and >> transactions can become an integral part of our queries. > > But then we first have to make sure we play nicely with 4.1 to begin with. Very true, I'll see if I can get to it this weekend. The != 0 solution and some testing is probably going to take care of it. >> If we can't get three header tables in 2.1, then I'll settle for two ;-) > > What's wrong with *one* extra table like someone else suggested: > (physmessage_id, header-name, header-value) ? That someone else was me ;-) Another someone else on the list convinced me that a join would be faster because we would only text-compare against the fairly finite header table, and then just follow the keys into the values table. The nasty part in either case is the join against the mailboxes tables and that whole chain of tables needed to ensure that we're only searching the right subset of messages. I suspect that a subselect will do it better. [snip the rest. in a nutshell, regexp, yeah, someone do it, cool.] Aaron --
