On 01/15/2013 01:51 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a
few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use
fts-lucene instead.
I'm running 2.1 and have just set up fts_solr. Should I scrap that
and move to
On 15.1.2013, at 21.05, Dave McGuire mcgu...@neurotica.com wrote:
On 01/15/2013 01:51 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a
few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use
fts-lucene instead.
I'm running
On 01/16/2013 12:17 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a
few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use
fts-lucene instead.
I'm running 2.1 and have just set up fts_solr. Should I scrap that
and move to
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 10:01 +0100, Erik Colson wrote:
Hi
I'm currently using dovecot 2.0 with squat fts which does a nice
job. However I'm thinking about upgrading to dovecot 2.1 and the wiki
isn't clear about which fts can or should be used with it.
Is squat support dead ? As the wiki
Hi
I'm currently using dovecot 2.0 with squat fts which does a nice
job. However I'm thinking about upgrading to dovecot 2.1 and the wiki
isn't clear about which fts can or should be used with it.
Is squat support dead ? As the wiki mentions that the config syntax is
obsolete, I'm not sure if
