On Montag, 31. Oktober 2005 03:15 Linda Walsh wrote:
> Still am not sure what size system (or user) db's should trigger
> usage of "SQL". Any reason why user DB's would hurt performance
> over a system DB using Berkeley format? Supposing I have no system
> DB and am only using user DB's? What if
Michael Monnerie wrote:
On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2005 06:33 Linda Walsh wrote:
Assuming it is some sort of berkeley db format, what is a good
cut-over size as a "rule-of-thumb"...or is there? What should I
expect in speeds for "sa-learn" or spamc? I.e. -- is there a
rough guideline for w
On Samstag, 29. Oktober 2005 06:33 Linda Walsh wrote:
> Assuming it is some sort of berkeley db format, what is a good
> cut-over size as a "rule-of-thumb"...or is there? What should I
> expect in speeds for "sa-learn" or spamc? I.e. -- is there a
> rough guideline for when it becomes more effec
Finally got the kinks worked out in my SA-3.1 setup last week. Filtered
out over 420 spams -- maybe 1 false positive, and it was borderline.
The speed on sa-learn has dropped, but that may be unavoidable. But
I'm finally getting >= spam recognition than I had in 2.63.
I have no-online tests en
