On Sun, Apr 19 2020, Olivier Taïbi wrote:
> This test extracts values from a (key,value) map where multiple entries
> can have the same key, and the entries are sorted by key, but not by
> value. The test incorrectly assumes that the values will be sorted as
> well, so sort the output.
This
Hello,
Notmuch contains a bit of logic for “normalising” the database path: it can
be relative to $HOME and fallsback to $MAILDIR or $HOME/mail. However, this
logic is implemented in `notmuch_config_open` and is not available through
bindings. So if a third-party tool wants to discover the
On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:31:09AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Don Zickus writes:
>
> >
> > Hmm, for me --small was 35s and --medium was 32 minutes. This is on a
> > i7-9750H / nvme. I would expect numbers similar to yours.
> >
>
> In addition to the breakdown of numbers that I posted, it
On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 05:29:13PM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> Don Zickus writes:
>
> >> runs in about 30s here (i7 4770 / SSD). Replacing --small with --medium
> >> takes about 10M (so a superlinear slowdown in wall clock time, since
> >> that represents a 10x scale-up in the corpus size.).
Franz Fellner writes:
> I also suffer from bad performance of notmuch new.
> I used notmuch some years ago and notmuch new always felt instantanious.
> Had to stop using it because internet was too slow to sync my mails :/
> Now (with better internet and a completely new setup using mbsync)
Franz Fellner writes:
> I also suffer from bad performance of notmuch new. I used notmuch
> some years ago and notmuch new always felt instantanious. Had to stop
> using it because internet was too slow to sync my mails :/ Now (with
> better internet and a completely new setup using mbsync)
Don Zickus writes:
>
> Hmm, for me --small was 35s and --medium was 32 minutes. This is on a
> i7-9750H / nvme. I would expect numbers similar to yours.
>
In addition to the breakdown of numbers that I posted, it would be
potentially useful to know if it is I/O bound or CPU bound, and what
