Michael Monnerie wrote: > On Donnerstag, 10. Dezember 2009 Tomas Kuliavas wrote: >> DBMail might find its niche in some setups, but large mailboxes are >> not in that niche. 750 GB DB proves it. You can't do text search raw >> email sources. There is no point of storing them in DB. > > And you believe doing a raw text search on a 750GB flat file mailserver > would be fast?
Raw text searches are not your typical usage pattern. Doing so in a truly high speed fashion is a principle goal for all imap implementations. For dbmail, using an external full text indexes such as solr/lucene would be the most logical (and scalable) solution. > > dbmail 2.3 is different in that it stores mimeparts separately. Maybe a > full text search skips binary attachments there. Paul? Currently, a full body text search will do a full table scan of the mimeparts table and pull in all mimeparts part of the messages in the mailbox being searched. If we want to skip all non text/* mimeparts (as allowed by the imap rfc), we'd have to add some knowledge of the mimetype contained in the mimepart. Doing so would be trivial. And so would fixing the query be that does the search. -- ________________________________________________________________ Paul Stevens paul at nfg.nl NET FACILITIES GROUP GPG/PGP: 1024D/11F8CD31 The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl _______________________________________________ DBmail mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
