Daniel McDonald-3 wrote: > > The question is not how processing one mail compares, but how 10 per > second > compare in each scenario. That's where the win is - lower total cpu > utilization to accomplish the same work. > Yes, that makes sense to me.
Daniel McDonald-3 wrote: > > But your numbers are really wacked out for duration. I grabbed a log of > 16418 mailed processed since the log rolled over last. Only a third of > them > took more than 1 second - 4749. Only a eighth of them took over 2 seconds > - > 2008, less than 2% took over 5 seconds - 301, and a very tiny fraction > (less > than a half percent) took over 10 seconds - just 74 > That was just for test purposes ;) I took a message with a size of 2 MB that contains text only, so I had something to see a noticeable difference in parsing of regexes. Daniel -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/sa-compile-has-no-effect-%28under-Windows.......%29-tp29304248p29333839.html Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
