From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/20242 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Asymptotically Approaching Relaxation Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: M-x gnus-filter-mail-at-warp-10 (was: Re: Pre-Processed maiil splitting under Gnus?) Date: 12 Jan 1999 12:00:35 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: <199901112208.RAA04940@magrathea.cosmic.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035158568 16736 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 00:02:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 00:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Cc: ding@gnus.org Return-Path: Original-Received: from karazm.math.uh.edu (karazm.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.1]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02546 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:02:38 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by karazm.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAB23776; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:01:29 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:01:38 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [204.252.123.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA15702 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 11:01:29 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from magrathea.cosmic.com (feoh@chrisp.xensei.com [204.96.52.53]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA02506 for ; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:01:21 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from feoh@localhost) by magrathea.cosmic.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA15481; Tue, 12 Jan 1999 12:00:35 -0500 Original-To: Hrvoje Niksic X-Reason-For-Owning-A-TV: Babylon 5 In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "12 Jan 1999 17:38:21 +0100" Original-Lines: 86 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/XEmacs 20.4 - "Emerald" Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:20242 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:20242 Hrvoje Niksic writes: > Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE writes: > > > Asymptotically Approaching Relaxation writes: > > > > > I'm seeing a total performance turnaround once I re-wrote my .gnus > > > file and minimized the length and complexity of the regexes I'm > > > filtering on. > > > > Ah. Why didn't I think of this? Since the Day of the > > Posixification of Regexes, regex matching has been rather slower for > > a number of regexes; and I'm not sure whether the fact that they're > > posixly correct now should be considered a Good Thing... > > Strange. Two remarks, though (none of which is meant to argue with > you): > > 1) As demonstrated by Tom Lord, GNU regex (which both Emacsen use) is > still not POSIX. > > 2) Why are there, at least in XEmacs, two sets of functions, posix- > regexp functions, and "normal" regexp functions? Also, the > internal code has various posix-p flags that apparently specify > whether POSIX behaviour is desired. I though the reason for > duplicate functionality was to gain speed in the non-POSIX (the > more usual) case. Hrrm. I'm not sure whether or not XEmacs' regexps Posixness or lack thereof is the determining faactor here. I suspect a dash of clue and a *MUCH* less complex string to parse per each filter are the cause. Here's the first bits of my nnmail-split-methods, old and new: OLD: (setq nnmail-split-methods '(("mail.imagine" ".*owner-imagine@MAELSTROM\.STJOHNS\.EDU") ("mail.mesa" "Return-Path:.*mesa.*.BR.*") ("mail.kaffe" "Sender:.*kaffe@w3\.org") ("mail.0xdeadbeef" ".*0xdeadbeef@substance\.abuse\.blackdown\.org") ("mail.0xdeadbeef" "To:.*0xdeadbeef@substance.abuse.blackdown.org") ("mail.linux-kernel" "linux-kernel@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-smp" "linux-smp@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-net" "linux-net@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-gcc" "linux-gcc@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-svgalib" "linux-svgalib@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-tape" "linux-tape@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ("mail.linux-scsi" "linux-scsi@vger\.rutgers\.edu") ... NEW: (setq nnmail-split-methods ("mail.imagine" "owner-imagine@") ("mail.0xdeadbeef" "0xdeadbeef@") ("mail.gnus" "ding@gnus\.org") ("mail.gimp" "gimp-.+@") ("mail.hwg-languages" "hwg-languages@") ("mail.hwg-critique" "hwg-critique@") ("mail.hwg-software" "hwg-software@") ("mail.squeak" "squeak@cs\.uiuc\.edu") ("mail.boston-pm" "boston-pm@") ("mail.perldl" "perldl@") ("mail.freshmeat" "freshmeat-news@") ... You get the idea. To at least somewhat quantify my performance boost, a mail spool of approx. 100 messages used to take on the order of a minute plus some slop. The same spool now filters in a little under 3 seconds :) Yay. I don't have to mess with procmail :) -Chris (I personally still favor pre versus post processing, but the pain is gone so I'll move on to the next egregious wound and call it a win :) ____________________________________________________________________ |Chris Patti|ICQ#16333120|feoh@cosmic.com|Home #:(617)625-3194|JAPH| |"I have opposable thumbs, and I can buy a rifle. I don't need to | | run from anything." -Todd Finney |