Re: best mailbox format?

a few things:

1. file seeking is faster than directory seeking.
2. parsing mbox requires no seeks at all.
3. I used some leet hacks to optimise the mbox parser :-)


On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 23:51, Kacper Wysocki wrote:
> > Peter Bloomfield wrote:
> >> It's been a long, slow job, but the mbox backend in cvs now seems
> >> robust, and gives reasonable performance.
> It's strange, but after running a couple of dozen tests on my 50mb mail  
> folder, trying out MH, Maildir and mbox, mbox came out the fastest! For  
> some reasons (cached data probably) opening the mailboxes took between  
> 3 and 5 seconds this time, with MH and Maildir doing 5 seconds and the  
> mbox format doing 3 seconds. Hmm.
> -Kacper

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