> >>But I am still not sure how much the performance gain is by > >>putting it into separate tables compared to searching on the > >>message blocks. > > > > > > Consider a hypothetical user who passes 2-5MB documents back and > > forth between colleagues all day long, and for whatever reason (he > > is part of management?) saves a copy of all mail sent and received. > > (He must be using a native webmail program, it looks like :). > > If he wants to search for a Subject including "Jan-Promo.doc" in > > all his messages, there's going to be a huge difference in the two > > setups. > > > > If I understand everything correct, the headers goes into the > first messageblock and the rest of the message goes into the next > message blocks. > With a flag on the message block containing marking it as a > header block will we only search the header blocks and these are > usually not that many kilobytes. > > But it remains to be implemented. > > My $0.02 is that we should make a simple solution first, that > maybe isn't that effective, but mostly good enough. We can then > refine it and add separate tables. > > Magnus >
yes, but don't you have to load, from the database, the entire field? that would be the entire 5MB file. ed p.s. I've been known to archive, as proof of delivery, 5MB files in my dbmail server. Security on the internet is impossible without strong, open, and unhindered encryption.
