https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6060
--- Comment #7 from Justin Mason <[email protected]> 2009-03-31 14:28:14 PST --- (In reply to comment #6) > great memory reduction figures! > > I'd like to get a benchmark of the speed of mass-check on a 50% ham/50% spam > corpus before and after. that's the best way to judge speed changes on this > code, I've found. ok, I've benched it -- pre: real 0m33.159s user 0m32.586s sys 0m0.392s real 0m31.770s user 0m31.282s sys 0m0.460s real 0m32.189s user 0m31.462s sys 0m0.548s peak memory usage: Tue Mar 31 21:26:51 2009: 0 1000 16007 14415 20 0 63956 59896 - R+ pts/6 0:30 /usr/bin/perl -w ./mass-check -n -o ham:mbox:/home/jm/ftp/tstcor/ham.mbox spam:mbox:/home/jm/ftp/tstcor/spam.mbox post: real 0m31.101s user 0m30.774s sys 0m0.320s real 0m31.150s user 0m30.850s sys 0m0.300s real 0m32.166s user 0m31.710s sys 0m0.300s peak memory usage: Tue Mar 31 21:23:35 2009: 0 1000 15424 14415 20 0 58428 54356 - R+ pts/6 0:29 /usr/bin/perl -w ./mass-check -n -o ham:mbox:/home/jm/ftp/tstcor/ham.mbox spam:mbox:/home/jm/ftp/tstcor/spam.mbox It's an improvement across the board there. +1 can you attach the other changes as patches and I'll test them too? -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
