Ken Hornstein <kenh(_at_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
Is this a bad idea? I'm mainly concerned about speed: Other than like
pick and scan on the whole folder, will anything else get very slow? I'm
using Fast File System on OpenBSD.
We've been asked about this before; unfortunately, with the current (n)mh
design, it's just going to suck.
A bit of an explanation: right now, pretty much every nmh program that
wants to interpret a folder calls folder_read(). folder_read() does
a readdir() on the ENTIRE folder. It does NOT do a stat() on every
file, but if you have 600k files in a single directory, that's just
going to take some time.
FWIW, I have not noticed any real performance problems with folder sizes
in the range of 10K-50K messages. I try to keep my folders under 100K,
not because performance falls off a cliff but because I begrudge the extra
space for the message number in scan listings.
It may or may not matter that I use exmh not direct nmh commands.
exmh seems to cache the scan output, but then again it adds a lot of
its own overhead.
regards, tom lane
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers