RE: Number 9 of the mytest summary store: writing things

[<Dirk-Jan Binnema nokia com>]

Hi Philip,

Interesting stuff -- some questions. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tinymail-devel-list-bounces gnome org 
 

>    Hence why grouping them together on sequence number: most searches
>    yield results that are close together in time. Sequence numbers on
>    IMAP servers are usually grouped in time too (relatively grouped in
>    time, depending on various things).

That's a pretty big assumption; do you have the numbers to support that?
I don't see how hits for "dog" would necessarily be close in time

> o. When adding summary items to the summary (which will 
> select a summary
>    block where the item will be added to using the requested sequence
>    number), the caller must attempt to avoid string duplicates for the
>    CC and TO fields of the items by sorting the addresses in the comma
>    separated strings of the items. Currently will the experimental
>    example do this for you. This further reduces VmRss as you'll have
>    singled-out more data as duplicate and made more data unique in
>    memory this way.

Obviously, you will save a bit of memory, but as I've shown before,
it's not very much in (ie. even with a 1000 duplicate addresses,  you'd
save only 20k)

On the other hand, couldn't this negatively impact performance? Right
now, strings for a certain message can be kept together, and maybe
use the cache in a bit better way. Also, determining what is a
non-unique
string will take time, and a code complexity.

It's hard to say what the end result of all this, let's be careful
and extremely skeptical :)

Best wishes,
Dirk.