From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/9253 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Moore Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Idea for turbo expiry Date: 24 Dec 1996 10:51:29 -0800 Sender: dmoore@sdnp5.ucsd.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035149305 17330 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:28:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:28:25 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by deanna.miranova.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with SMTP id LAA30445 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:12:34 -0800 Original-Received: from UCSD.EDU (mailbox1.ucsd.edu [132.239.1.53]) by ifi.uio.no with ESMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 19:53:24 +0100 Original-Received: from sdnp5.ucsd.edu (sdnp5.ucsd.edu [132.239.79.10]) by UCSD.EDU (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA11830 for ; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:53:22 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by sdnp5.ucsd.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id KAA12906; Tue, 24 Dec 1996 10:51:30 -0800 Original-To: "(ding) Gnus Mailing List" X-Face: "oX;zS#-JU$-,WKSzG.1gGE]x^cIg!hW.dq>.f6pzS^A+(k!T|M:}5{_%>Io<>L&{hO7W4cicOQ|>/lZ1G(m%7iaCf,6Qgk0%%Bz7b2-W3jd0m_UG\Y;?]}4s0O-U)uox>P3JN)9cm]O\@,vy2e{`3pb!"pqmRy3peB90*2L Mail-Copies-To: never In-Reply-To: Jason L Tibbitts III's message of 24 Dec 1996 11:22:59 -0600 Original-Lines: 31 X-Mailer: Red Gnus v0.76/XEmacs 19.15 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9253 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:9253 Jason L Tibbitts III writes: > I dipped into the expiry code to see why it was taking so much CPU every > time I exited an nnml group. It looks to me like it builds a list of all > expirable articles and stats each of them in turn to see if they're old > enough. Yeah, it does this if you use total-expire. > My idea is to make the assumption that articles come in chronologically, so > that if an article has a lower number, it it older. Thus you can run the > list of articles in numerical order and bail after you find one that is too > young to expire. I figure (judging from how much mail I save in some of my > active folders) that this would cut my expiry time by a factor of 100 or > more. I was thinking a good thing to do would be to get a list of all of the files in the directory and intersect that list with the read list, and only remove things in the intersection. This wins big over both the default and the start at low numbers approaches when the total number of articles in the group is in the 10 thousands and you've only got say 100 messages actually sitting there. But in any case the method used for total-expire can be improved upon. -- David Moore | Computer Systems Lab __o UCSD Dept. Computer Science - 0114 | Work: (619) 534-8604 _ \<,_ La Jolla, CA 92093-0114 | Fax: (619) 534-1445 (_)/ (_) |