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, but
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
extensive
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 fixed
Quoting Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com:
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):
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 is
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, that
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 setup any
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, it
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
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 10
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 IMAP
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
Dovecot,
12 matches
Mail list logo
