Re: No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

[Alberto L <alberto.l@nospam.net>]

Hi Ted,

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

Ted> On 17 Mar 2006, alberto.l@nospam.net wrote:
>> I recently upgraded from Oort 0.24 to No 0.30 and my spam handling
>> has become quite slow.  Here is my situation:
[...]
>> This is quite slower with No 0.30 w.r.t. Oort 0.24 because,
>> apparently, both mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are written to
>> disk each time a single message is moved.  With Oort 0.24 as far as
>> I can understand both groups are written to disk only once.

Ted> Alberto,

Ted> thank you for the comments.

Ted> Some people on the 'ding' mailing list (which is the main vehicle
Ted> for Gnus development) have commented that nnfolder is much slower
Ted> with CVS Emacs than with the older releases.  Could this be part
Ted> of the problem?

I use xemacs 21.4.13 (and sometimes emacs 21.3), in Linux CentOs 4.
My impression is that xemacs/emacs speed in dealing with nnfoldel
files didn't change, but No Gnus 0.30 is slower than Oort Gnus 0.24
because it has a less efficient strategy in multiple message moving,
with the nnfolder backend.  I will look in the past messages of this
group to get the coordinates one the 'ding' mailing list and will try
to collaborate there.

Ted> Also, is it possible for you to use the CVS version of Gnus, so
Ted> we can debug this problem against the latest version of spam.el?

That's OK, I will look how to get the CVS version.
Thanks for the message,
-- 
Alberto