On 3/6/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin ha scritto:
> i'm a torque expert so here are a couple of questions about the schema...
That's cool ;-)
Well, Joachim is the man for your answers, but I try with my knowledge
about...
> 1. there don't seem to be any indexes. is this intentional? does
> torque automatically add indexes?
It is not intentional: it was the first easy step to make it working.
i'll try some indexes locally and see if they make a noticeable difference
> 2. the header is a VARCHAR length 1024. this seems a little short to
> me. is there a good reason for this choice?
1024 == A random number for the first tests
The rationale is: IIRC the RFC does not require limits on the header
size, so we are stuck to a arbitrary number that will not fit any message.
Maybe 1024 will fit 99% of messages, but maybe 2-3K will work better:
those figures accord with my experience
messages with 1MB headers will need a special handling anyway
true
ATM a message with a header that is too big is simply rejected. even
if only 1% are effected then perhaps we shouldn't be just rejecting
these mail since they are RFC compliant. any ideas about better ways
to handle this case?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
