Aaron Stone wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor <matthew@zeut.net> said:
Agreed, the only reason I propose the header_list table is for
performance reasons. This allows the header_values table (which will be
much bigger) to be searched based on an int comparison rather than text
search. I think this is a serious performance boost, but if it's proven
that it's not, then we don't need it.
Once upon a time, I argued this out with... someone (sorry!)... and we
came to the conclusion that separating headers from values would be
better.
I think you are saying you support my two table solution? Or at least
having a separate header_list table? (Just want to make sure I'm not
misinterpereting you)
[snip]
They also keep the
entire message in one field in the messages table which we don't do
because of the size limitations of MySQL (at least older mysql...)
This is a limitation for all databases... you can only prepare a query as
large as available memory! I think it would make sense to have *some* sort
of mechanism for hangling very large messages.
The Yukatan project doesn't seem to think so. As far as the messageblks
thing goes, I think you are overestimating the average email size and
underestimating what a good database can handle.
