On Wednesday, Oct 15, 2003, at 16:22 Europe/Amsterdam, Jesse Norell
wrote:
Ilja,
There have been various discussions in the past on the lists
reguarding indexing issues... I don't remember all the issues,
but a couple items that come to mind are:
1) It would be nice to provide multiple index sets - most of
the ones that have been posted are good for imap, but almost
entireley extra overhead if you just use pop3. We've improved
our pop3 performance by removing most of them and perhaps
optimizing a couple (or they may be identical, I don't remember).
It'd be nice to list a set that are good for pop3-only sites,
imap-only sites, and sites with both services. And of course
we'll throw in a set of recommended indexes for running weDBmail. ;)
I agree this would be nice. I'm not a database guru myself. Learning
though :)
I'm wondering how big the actual overhead is when using "IMAP"-indexing
with POP. Any ideas?
2) Please read the first paragraph of this message:
http://twister.fastxs.net/pipermail/dbmail-dev/2003-June/000163.html
That really ought to be done (ie. use only status flag to mark a
message that is being inserted, and drop unique_id out of the
indexes completely (well, except for the one index that is supposed
to be for that field)). I was planning on working on it, but kind
of ran out of time.
I like the idea of using the status field for this. We have to take
a careful look at all code to see if this does not have any
bad implications (I wouldn't know really).
I'm really busy with all kinds of stuff now (including a lot of
DBMail work). Could you try to take a closer look at this. If it
turns out to be useful and working we will gladly accept a patch
for DBMail 2.0 implementing this.
Ilja
--
IC&S
Koningsweg 4
3582 GE UTRECHT
