Re: [Evolution-hackers] compression for folders?

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 01:01, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-05-12 at 05:13, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> 
> > but it's slower than if hi, ho, and fun were all gzipped in one stream.
> > to find the end of the gzipped 'hi' stream, you have to continually test
> > of EOS by comparing 8 bytes (crc32 and isize). If they match, then
> > you've found the end of the gzip stream, else continue.
> 
> I've been watching this discussion, and though I'm not interested in
> client-side mail archival myself, I have a suggestion about how it might
> be accomplished vaguely efficiently, though at the cost of some
> complexity.
> 
> Perhaps it might be reasonable to compress archived folders into (say)
> ~100kb chunks, and maintain header indexes of each chunk? That way,
> displaying headers doesn't involve accessing the mailboxes at all, and
> when the user tries to access a message you only need to seek over a
> small compressed file to get the message.

we already do something like this (bot for the entire folder, not 100kb
chunks).

see mbox.ev-summary :-)

Jeff