From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/42559 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Kleinpaste Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: db-backed mail back end Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:23:43 -0500 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035177784 12488 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 05:23:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:23:04 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 29242 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 03:24:31 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 03:24:31 -0000 Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu ([129.7.128.10] ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 16TwyD-0004Vr-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:24:05 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:24:00 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (qmailr@sclp3.sclp.com [209.196.61.66]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA20045 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:23:48 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 29233 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 03:23:46 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 29228 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 03:23:45 -0000 Original-Received: from mesquite.slip.cs.cmu.edu (HELO cinnamon.vanillaknot.com) (128.2.207.11) by gnus.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 03:23:45 -0000 Original-Received: (from karl@localhost) by cinnamon.vanillaknot.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0P3Ni710802; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 22:23:44 -0500 Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Face: "8-CgoYhiD_O!#(F%E=..0>QA_#WDy+]_XoAr)L]`-zjAc\d+nsFXq`=v_# =pVh#sP*K~j,0k9N}`E7jX"5+U?4/UIF1EE X-Face: "5(T0tZd{6}pd~YzBG8O/*EW,.]6]@`m^e;fv65W^Y&=d"M\1H}>T~4_.kcDD.O~y3k)a6 hR;Nmi>9|>Nm${2IpM0^RcUEa\jcq?KOP)C&~x51l~zCHTulL^_T|u0I^kB'z@]{`2YjQu In-Reply-To: (Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen's message of "Fri, 25 Jan 2002 03:42:18 +0100") Original-Lines: 30 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp, i686-pc-linux) Precedence: list X-Majordomo: 1.94.jlt7 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:42559 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:42559 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > Yes. And that's not acceptable. If it takes 7.5 seconds to enter a > group to look at the one new article, then that's too slow. Much, > much, much too slow. Sorry, no, I don't buy it. Every day, people use Gnus to enter NNTP groups with 100, 500, 1000, or 2000 new articles to scan, sort, and maybe even read a few. Every time they do this, they spend tens of seconds while threading, scoring, sorting, and summary generation occur. This sort of use is of the all-day-every-day kind. Yet you want to optimize the case that's so far out to the edge, I doubt there's anyone that even actually _has_ a single group with 200K messages in it, against which to test the planned optimization. (Does anyone? Really, right now? Does anyone have a group, or does anyone plan to create a group, that goes beyond, say, 30K messages?) You're optimizing this bizarre, unusual, never-seen case, while the case that I've run into at least a dozen times today alone haunts us, where getting into a big, busy, NNTP group costs me minutes of computation time while *Summary* is generated. There's certainly no harm to making Gnus able to handle the storage needs of gargantuan archives. Sure, knock yourself out. But that's not a problem currently being faced by more than maybe 5 people on the planet, whereas every single Gnus user has to worry over the entry time cost of a busy group with 900 new messages. Ohwell, attitudes vary, that's all.