Something to note here is that SM 1.5 is coming along and it sounds like
much of the IMAP code has been improved considerably. I'm gonna try
that out soon and see if it's much better.
Matt
Aaron Stone wrote:
I suspect the SM function in question is this one:
/**
* Retrieves a list with headers, flags, size or
* internaldate from the imap server
*
[snip]
function sqimap_get_small_header_list($imap_stream, $msg_list,
$aHeaderFields = array('Date', 'To', 'Cc', 'From',
'Subject', 'X-Priority', 'Content-Type'),
$aFetchItems = array('FLAGS', 'RFC822.SIZE', 'INTERNALDATE')) {
[snip]
}
The function returns an array of those items for 1:*
Aaron
On Mon, May 15, 2006, Paul J Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
My guess is that sort is not the bottleneck but 'fetch'.
Sort is already fully optimized using only well normalized tables and
pretty fast queries.
At this moment envelope and bodystructure still require full message
retrieval and parsing.
Envelope could be fixed by using the header tables, but both can be
fixed by pre-caching the envelope and bodystructure responses like we do
already for the headers. Both are so common, and so expensive that it
makes a lot of sense. However, doing that while the fetch code is being
rebuild seems rather premature.
In short, this is on the todo.
Aaron Stone wrote:
SM is definitely a big downstream application that we should do
performance profiling with. Matt, if you could post a loglevel 5 trace
that contains the SORT commands that SM send, we can put the command
through the ringer.
Aaron
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 12:26 -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
Hello all. One of the things I have been hoping to be true about the
development branch of DBMail is that Squirrelmail would be faster. I
thought that with the server side sorting and threading that it would
make a big difference, but so far in my limited testing, I'm not seeing
any real noticeable improvement. At this point I think it might be a
configuration issue, but I did set SM for server side sorting etc...
Any advice on SM performance issues with 2.1? Anyone seeing anything
different?
BTW, This is CentOS 4.3 with PostgreSQL 8.1 and Squirrelmail 1.4.6.
Matt
_______________________________________________
Dbmail-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
_______________________________________________
Dbmail-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl
NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
_______________________________________________
Dbmail-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://twister.fastxs.net/mailman/listinfo/dbmail-dev
