Re: [Q] : Search performance

On 11.08.2002 17:35 Pawel Salek wrote:
> On 2002.08.11 23:27 Emmanuel wrote:
>> 	Hi all,
>> I had a look at the balsa-index code : I saw that we now use a hash 
>> table to handle the search function. The problem I see with that is 
>> that we must test all messages whereas we're just looking for the next 
>> or previous one matching the condition. This is particularly suboptimal 
>> if you have a big mailbox and you're looking for a susbstring contained 
>> in the message body.
>> I think we should just test one by one.
> I agree too. But, any method you are going to invent should be 
> consistent with the IMAP paradigm. I can imagine for example searching 
> IMAP mailboxes by in chunks of 100 messages, or something similar.

I forgot IMAP ;-)
But I think that we should have different mechanisms for local and remote 
mailboxes : I don't want to wait when I'm manipulating local mailboxes, 
and I also want to have the best bandwidth use on remote ones.
In fact one of the problem is that we get the matching messages EACH time 
we want a search, even if the criterium has not changed I think.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]