On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:19:56AM -0400, Allister MacLeod wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2003 at 11:22:22PM +0900, Derek Martin wrote: > > Then you're practically admitting that an alternative should be > > available. I think the only /reliable/ alternative involves parsing > > each message. You could, however, cache message information (i.e. > > file offsets of each message, start and end of headers, etc.) to make > > such things much faster... I imagine that mutt would benefit greatly > > from such a cache in other ways too. > > Could you elaborate on the ways mutt would benefit from having such a > cache? Not very well, because I'm not that familiar with (most of) mutt's code, and it's hard to say where it might benefit from such optimizations without knowing. Some suggestions I could make may already be present in mutt in some form or other... For example, to speed up message retrieval in mbox folders, you could cache the file offsets of the start of each message, and maybe the start of each message's body. Then to retrieve and individual message, you can f/lseek() directly to it rather than re-read the whole message store up to that message. You could also cache commonly used headers, such as subject, sender, recipients, date, etc. > I agree that some sort of cached information could definitely help > mutt do things faster, even without compromising its reliability. > I'm just curious to see what ideas you have about what information > would be useful to cache, and what benefits could be gained. Yeah, I dunno. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0xDFBEAD02 -=-=-=-=- This message is posted from an invalid address. Replying to it will result in undeliverable mail. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank the spammers.
Attachment:
pgp5bu3mDr3UG.pgp
Description: PGP signature