On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 08:34 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Awesome-- 13x increase in speed. Nice work Timo. I'll definitely
> appreciate it when I move to 2.0. Maybe it'll be fast enough I can get rid
> of Squat.
>
> Any chance these changes will make it as a bug fix into 1.2.11? How
> extensi
Timo Sirainen put forth on 2/28/2010 6:21 AM:
> On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 21:04 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> Looks like some input stream seeking optimizations are broken (when
>> one input stream reads from another, which reads from another, ...). I
>> already managed to fix the performance problem,
Timo Sirainen put forth on 2/25/2010 1:04 PM:
> On 24.2.2010, at 20.27, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>> Looks like there's something very wrong with mbox with v1.2+. It's doing
>> a *lot* of message header parsing work that doesn't happen with v1.1 or
>> with other mailbox formats. Probably because I fi
Quoting Stan Hoeppner :
Are you using any FTS plugins? Squat?
Nope, not as far as I know. Dovecot -n lists the following plugins:
mail_plugins(default): zlib acl imap_acl
mail_plugins(imap): zlib acl imap_acl
mail_plugins(pop3): zlib
mail_plugin_dir(default): /usr/lib64/dovecot/imap
mail_pl
On 02/25/2010 06:55 AM Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 25.2.2010, at 7.47, Pascal Volk wrote:
>> When the index should be up-to-date all the time (what's very important
>> (IMHO)), I'm asking myself: Why are there no fts plugins for the lda and
>> lmtp section? When the index would by updated on delivery
On 25.2.2010, at 7.47, Pascal Volk wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 07:27 PM Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> Well, when index is up-to-date it's fast. But after you've received a
>> few mails, at least with me it seemed to spend more time updating the
>> index than just doing the regular search.
>
> I've never set
On 02/24/2010 07:27 PM Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Well, when index is up-to-date it's fast. But after you've received a
> few mails, at least with me it seemed to spend more time updating the
> index than just doing the regular search.
I've never setup any of the three FTS plugins. I've only seen, tha
Eric Rostetter put forth on 2/24/2010 11:04 PM:
> But it works okay on my 4K to 5K message mbox files, which are the largest
> I have... Usually takes about 1 second per 1K messages, so about 4 seconds
> for the 4K mbox, 5 seconds for the 5K mbox, etc. Of course, a bit slower
> when the server i
On 23.2.2010, at 22.49, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Well, v1.1+ does case-insensitive searches by converting all mails to UTF-8
>> first. But it really shouldn't make it that much slower. What OS and CPU is
>> this with?
>
> Debian 5.0.4
> Linux kernel 2.6.31.1 rolled by me from kernel.org source
>
Timo Sirainen put forth on 2/23/2010 12:33 PM:
> On 23.2.2010, at 16.19, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Did you mislead me Timo? You said search in 1.1+ is faster than 1.0. I'm
>> seeing approximately 20x *slower* search times in 1.2.10.
>>
>> Via Thunderbird, a full body search of my 11,000+ message
On 23.2.2010, at 16.19, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Did you mislead me Timo? You said search in 1.1+ is faster than 1.0. I'm
> seeing approximately 20x *slower* search times in 1.2.10.
>
> Via Thunderbird, a full body search of my 11,000+ message IMAP folder hosted
> by 1.0.15 used to take less than
Did you mislead me Timo? You said search in 1.1+ is faster than 1.0. I'm
seeing approximately 20x *slower* search times in 1.2.10.
Via Thunderbird, a full body search of my 11,000+ message IMAP folder hosted
by 1.0.15 used to take less than 10 seconds. Since upgrading to 1.2.10 the
search is ta
12 matches
Mail list logo
