Another Database Question: Mailbox sizes
Since PM is database-driven, I assume that the folder/mailbox a
particular message is located in is simply a single field in the record
for that message. If that's the case, then the answer to my question
(below) is probably "no effect," but I'll ask it anyway:
Is there any effect on performance or stability of the database when you
have a very large number of messages in one mailbox, as opposed to
splitting them across several?
I moved to PM from Eudora, and that program, which had a recommended
upper limit on mailbox size, caused me to get into a routine of splitting
my archived mail into mailboxes based on time periods ("Spring 2001,"
etc.). But with PM's integrated database, and it's phenomenal searching,
I'm wondering if that's even necessary at all any longer.
My "sent messages" box is currently 6,000 plus and climbing. Any worries
at all?
---
Scott T. Hards
President
HobbyLink Japan (www.hlj.com)
Re: Another Database Question: Mailbox sizes
Scott at HobbyLink Japan wrote: >Is there any effect on performance or stability of the database when you >have a very large number of messages in one mailbox, as opposed to >splitting them across several? If you have tens of thousands of messages in a single folder, it can take a few seconds to display the folder for the first time on a slow machine. Other than that, having these messages in a single folder or split in multiple folders have no impact on the database performance. However, the total number of messages in the whole database have an effect on the performance, but there is no real limit other than the maximum database physical size (2 GB). Jérôme - PowerMail Engineering - "None of the other POP clients does so much so simply. For serious users of e-mailer, the value of PowerMail 4 is excellent even considering the free alternatives." PowerMail user comment on www.macupdate.com Download a demo version from www.ctmdev.com -
