From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/68827 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Karl Kleinpaste Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Gnus' speed Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:03:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: <87zlao7j1z.fsf@CPU107.opentrends.net> <87iqhb7w7a.fsf@CPU107.opentrends.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1248865847 2785 80.91.229.12 (29 Jul 2009 11:10:47 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:10:47 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M17247@lists.math.uh.edu Wed Jul 29 13:10:40 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MW73O-0002nH-LV for ding-account@gmane.org; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:10:38 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MW6wD-0007xK-AH; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:03:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mx1.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.32]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1MW6wB-0007wt-Nm for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:03:11 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx1.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MW6wA-0007Xw-A4 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 06:03:11 -0500 Original-Received: from zimbs2.srv.cs.cmu.edu ([128.2.220.246] helo=mesquite.kleinpaste.org) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1MW6wj-0000YP-00 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:03:45 +0200 Original-Received: from awol.kleinpaste.org.kleinpaste.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mesquite.kleinpaste.org (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6TB34qO000447 for ; Wed, 29 Jul 2009 07:03:05 -0400 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: (David Engster's message of "Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:44:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) XEmacs/21.5-b29 (linux) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/9628/Tue Jul 28 22:53:38 2009 on mesquite.kleinpaste.org X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:68827 Archived-At: David Engster writes: > * Scoring in general is slow. For maximum speed, one should omit > scoring completely. I am surprised that anyone would want to do away with scoring; its utility is so high in terms of determining what is/isn't worth reading that, even if slow, it is too valuable to ignore. That said, I don't find it slow. I even have an "all" scorefile along with the usual per-group scorefiles, and I don't perceive any special penalty from using scoring. Scorefile processing is immensely faster than the older killfile processing (which capability still exists), by a factor of 3 or 4, as I recall from tests we ran about 10 years ago. I don't believe the fundamental structure of either scoring or killing has changed in a geological epoch. Scoring was a humongous step forward in both capability (fine granularity; display enhancements) over killing (blind, deaf, and dumb as to any nuances).