Derek Martin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:23:25PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote: > > On 14.07.2015, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote: > > > With mbox, I guess the designers thought there wouldn't be that much of a > > > speed improvement > > > because it's just a sequential read of a single file. > > > > That sounds reasonable. > > Except, as far as I can tell, it isn't. I see no reason hcache could > not significantly speed up scanning mbox folders as well, at least on > any system that supports lseek() or similar (which I imagine is any > system that Mutt runs on currently). The amount of benefit you'd get > from this would greatly depend on the nature of the messages stored in > the folder, though... Folders of moderate size or larger, with mostly > large messages (or attachments) should see the most benefit, and those > with many small messages, or with very few messages, would see the > least (but still some).
for lseek() to be useful, you need to know where to lseek to which you wouldn't in this case (if you want reliable parsing). and anyway, i'd like to think mutt uses mmap() for mbox files. cheers, raf
