From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:38:57 -0500
From: William Josephson <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Scaleable mail repositories.
Message-ID: <20051031183857.GD50312@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <9fa83ab8997dae0d06b9c6bfd8b7c2b6@lsub.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9fa83ab8997dae0d06b9c6bfd8b7c2b6@lsub.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a352f018-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 04:33:29PM +0100, Fco. J. Ballesteros wrote:
> :  5 seconds per 1000 seems a tad slow to me. But I'm picky. It still might 
> :  be worth it since you get all the tools. It's certainly faster than mh 
> :  ever was.
> 
> Yep. I agree. I think that the problem is that you need something else
> (appart from grep) to search on big file trees. Any search tool that lets
> you lookup file paths by content would work with your mail as well.
> We have a home grown program that does that, but it does not work well
> enough and does not deserve distribution.

I know at least one person who uses glimpse for this.
Of course his glimpse index process tended to knock
over one of the Sparc cycle servers with some regularity.