Geo Carncross wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:16 +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
>
>>> CREATE INDEX dbmail_messages_wide ON dbmail_messages
>>> (mailbox_idnr,message_idnr,status); CREATE INDEX
>>> dbmail_messages_wider ON dbmail_messages
>>> (mailbox_idnr,message_idnr,status,physmessage_id);
>>>
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:16 +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> > Another option (probably would help other dbs too) is to use two
> > subselects - one on dbmail_messages and one on dbmail_physmessage. This
> > way, the best index for dbmail_messages can be used-
> >
> > CREATE INDEX dbmail_messages_wi
Geo Carncross wrote:
> The dbmail_messages_physmessage_idx isn't the best index to use.
>
> You have several options:
>
> put extra columns in dbmail_physmessage that reference the message_idnr
> and mailbox_idnr (and index them WITH the dbmail_physmessage.id) -- THEN
> adapt the query to look f
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005, Geo Carncross:
> Another option (probably would help other dbs too) is to use two
> subselects - one on dbmail_messages and one on dbmail_physmessage. This
> way, the best index for dbmail_messages can be used-
Not really responding to the post (no free brainpower this morni
The dbmail_messages_physmessage_idx isn't the best index to use.
You have several options:
put extra columns in dbmail_physmessage that reference the message_idnr
and mailbox_idnr (and index them WITH the dbmail_physmessage.id) -- THEN
adapt the query to look for these fields (e.g. AND pm.message
Hi Aaron,
>>now I have only one slow query left - unfortunately I have no idea why
>>it is that slow. The mailbox contains ~1800 mails. It takes 45 seconds
>>to open it:
>>
>>SELECT seen_flag, answered_flag, deleted_flag, flagged_flag, draft_flag,
>>recent_flag, TO_CHAR(internal_date, '-MM-DD
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I've also committed this to the 2.0 svn branch. About time we cut a
2.0.4rc1 I suppose. Aaron? We can defer bug #161 to 2.0.5 or even 2.1,
but any guesstimates on #164, perhaps?
Ok, thanks for reminding me.
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=177
==
Reported By:mobrien
Assigned To
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005, Thomas Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Hi,
>
> now I have only one slow query left - unfortunately I have no idea why
> it is that slow. The mailbox contains ~1800 mails. It takes 45 seconds
> to open it:
>
> SELECT seen_flag, answered_flag, deleted_flag, flagged_flag,
On Thu, Mar 10, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Ok, thanks for reminding me. Let's kick #161 because if we haven't started
>> looking into what crashes the mime parser, now ain't the time.
>
> Well, the crash was triggered by malformed messages with crafted headers
> (read: emb
Hi,
now I have only one slow query left - unfortunately I have no idea why
it is that slow. The mailbox contains ~1800 mails. It takes 45 seconds
to open it:
SELECT seen_flag, answered_flag, deleted_flag, flagged_flag, draft_flag,
recent_flag, TO_CHAR(internal_date, '-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS' ), rfc
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 01:26:56 -, Aaron Stone
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Geo Carncross wrote:
> >> http://dbmail.org/index.php?page=download
> >>
> >> says it's in CVS; I haven't seen a CVS update in a week.
> >> I see mention
Aaron Stone wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
I've also committed this to the 2.0 svn branch. About time we cut a
2.0.4rc1 I suppose. Aaron? We can defer bug #161 to 2.0.5 or even 2.1,
but any guesstimates on #164, perhaps?
Ok, thanks for reminding me.
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=177
==
Reported By:mobrien
Assigned To
I think this might be it before 2.0.4. I'm out of commission for another
full week. Sorry I didn't transfer off this stuff to someone less busy
already.
Bug #164: proper return status for over quota
I posted my work in progress.
Hopefully Paul can finish it.
Bug #177: compile fails on FreeB
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=159
==
Reported By:OutboundIndex
Assig
The following bug has been RESOLVED.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=170
==
Reported By:bb
Assigned To:
A BUGNOTE has been added to this bug.
==
http://www.dbmail.org/mantis/bug_view_advanced_page.php?bug_id=177
==
Reported By:mobrien
Assigned To
On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I've also committed this to the 2.0 svn branch. About time we cut a
> 2.0.4rc1 I suppose. Aaron? We can defer bug #161 to 2.0.5 or even 2.1,
> but any guesstimates on #164, perhaps?
Ok, thanks for reminding me. Let's kick #161 becau
On Wed, Mar 9, 2005, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Geo Carncross wrote:
>> http://dbmail.org/index.php?page=download
>>
>> says it's in CVS; I haven't seen a CVS update in a week.
>> I see mention of things on the list before I see then in SVN.
>
> I know I've switched to SVN for bo
On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 23:53 +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> Geo Carncross wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 23:06 +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> >> Geo Carncross wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2005-03-09 at 19:10 +0100, Thomas Mueller wrote:
> >>>
> No index will ever solve the problem for PostgreSQL. CO
21 matches
Mail list logo
