From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/42553 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 21:17:02 -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 1035177778 12440 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 05:22:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 05:22:58 +0000 (UTC) Keywords: time,size,scaling Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 28290 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 02:20:49 -0000 Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu (mail@129.7.128.13) by mastaler.com with SMTP; 25 Jan 2002 02:20:49 -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 16Tvvj-0003Tq-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:17:27 -0600 Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:17:22 -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 UAA19654 for ; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 20:17:08 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: (qmail 28270 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2002 02:17:07 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 28265 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2002 02:17:05 -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 02:17:05 -0000 Original-Received: (from karl@localhost) by cinnamon.vanillaknot.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g0P2H3O08359; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 21:17:03 -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 02:28:54 +0100") Original-Lines: 25 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:42553 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:42553 Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen writes: > That was as 20K group. I'm looking for 200K group solutions. Do you have reason to believe that scaling 20K->200K (10x) will be substantially worse than scaling 100->20K (200x)? You only had a 3x time factor in the case already seen, for a 200x content increase. Why is there reason to believe that scaling up again by a mere 10x will be substantially worse? If by some fluke you should find a full 10x time cost for the 10x size increase of 20K->200K, you will encounter a 4-article entry to a 200K group costing a stunning...7.5 seconds (based on your 0.25 and 0.75 timings). That's about long enough to take a leisurely sip of . Maybe 10x is a reasonable scaling expectation in 20K->200K, maybe not. Maybe filesystem overhead, or the system's control of Emacs' virtual memory behavior, will make it much worse. I don't know. Maybe it'll only cost 3x time to scale size by 10x. It only cost 3x time for a 200x size before. I'm not trying to be difficult or argumentative. I'm just trying to figure out what problem you're really trying to solve. So far, I see some nebulous idea that "it's slow," without being able to qualify, much less quantify, where the problem lies.