2008/10/16 Jean-Francois Dockes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thanks a lot for running these tests and sending the results. > > It's quite reassuring that initial indexing works as expected. > > About later indexing passes, I had another look at how Recoll *really* > works (as opposed to how I thought it worked :) ) and in fact, for file > types with missing helper applications, indexing is always retried (so that > it succeeds as soon as the helper is installed). Trying to execute the > filters wastes quite a lot of time. > > This explains why the times go down after the helper is installed: the > files get indexed the first time, then nothing further happens if they stay > unchanged. > > Recoll 1.11 has been modified to work slightly differently: executing a > missing filter is only tried once per indexing pass. The program then > remembers the failure and doesn't retry. > > The files still get indexed at the first indexing pass following helper > installation, and there is almost no performance penalty for missing > helpers, best of both worlds (hopefully). > > Thanks again for prompting me to implement this well-needed change. > > Regards, > J.F. Dockes
Thank you JF, This is a great example of how flexible and reactive Open Source software can be - thank you for sharing this excellent program with us all. Best wishes, Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
