Re: [Evolution] Evo memory use

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>]

On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:35, Dan Winship wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 11:14, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 16:06, Dan Winship wrote:
> > > > If the server can sort the mail for you (or thread -- that's just a
> > > > special case of sorting), then it means you don't have to have headers
> > > > of all the mail in the folder before you can display anything. You can
> > > > dramatically reduce network load, and improve responsiveness
> > >
> > > Well, you still need to download all of the headers that you're going to
> > > *display*. Meaning it's still O(n) on the size of your mailbox, just
> > > with a different constant.
> >
> > Er. the number of headers you're going to display is O(n) of the size of
> > the index window, not the size of the mailbox. 
> >
> > That's about ten messages, not the 3000-odd in the mailbox I may be
> > looking at.
>
> So, first off, unless you get 3000 new messages and delete all of them
> every day, the Evolution way would result in less total network traffic
> than the Pine way, which has to keep redownloading all that information
> every single time you look at your mail.

Pine isn't ideal either. The best solution is a combination of the two
-- you do local caching but you don't insist on having a cache of
_everything_ before you display _anything_.

-- 
dwmw2