Hi, * Vincent Lefevre [06-11-14 02:15:36 +0100] wrote:
On 2006-11-13 15:27:02 +0000, Rocco Rutte wrote:I don't think time-based is a good alternative to $search_inc. The reason is quite simple: when you have 52k messages then mutt needs to query the time 52k times. And if the search is trivial so that search/limit is done in <1 second, it will slow things down drastically.
I've tried here under Mac OS X, replacing the mutt_message by a call to times in your patch, with $search_inc=1, and a limit on my 52k mailbox takes a fraction of second. So, this is very fast, at least *much* faster than calling mutt_message (and I haven't even tried through a SSH connection). This is even faster than $search_inc=10 with mutt_message.
Okay, I didn't actually test it. But still I think it's not necessary to call time() on every single message we examine.
On the other hand: we now have $read_inc/$write_inc and $net_inc. The first two are used for reading messages and thus specify a message boundary when to update things. The latter is for network data and thus specifies a data limit.
And as search operates on messages, too, I think per message is okay.A value of 10 still is just too low for fast machines like it is for $read_inc/$write_inc...
bye, Rocco -- :wq!