> > You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance > into the ground. > > The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in > parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good, > efficient use of memory cache. > > By running rules in score-order, you break this, forcing SA to run > through the body multiple times, degrading performance. >
Mr K SA is an awesome, incredible product and tool. Wonderful Job! I am not an expert on the programming theory, design, and implementation behind SA. So... are you saying SA takes a single email and breaks it apart into several pieces and scans those pieces via multiple processing threads and comes back with an additive single end result for that single emails multiple scan processing threads? I do admit that I am respectfully optimistic about your teams ability to design code that would run just as fast if not faster with a "score order" end result. Maybe you could let us make that decision with local.cf knob? I mean, most processors are so fast nowadays...... I am thinking we would brute force it under some circumstances 'till you folks come forth with even more brilliant design and implementation breakthroughs. What think? Is there somewhere you recommend that we can view discussions on making processing faster? :-) - rh
