Re: [Evolution] Evo memory use
- From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org>
- To: Dan Winship <danw ximian com>
- Cc: Not Zed <notzed ximian com>, Ettore Perazzoli <ettore ximian com>, Cliff Wells <LogiplexSoftware earthlink net>, Evolution Mailing List <evolution ximian com>
- Subject: Re: [Evolution] Evo memory use
- Date: 19 Feb 2003 19:08:10 +0000
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
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_.
] [Thread Prev