Hi Stephen, Thank you so much for your email.
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 at 17:43, Stephen J. Turnbull <turnb...@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> wrote: > Marco van Tol writes: > > > I tried this, and everything works fine with the last version of my > script, > > except for one sort-of minor thing, > > Please don't deprecate your requirements. If you need it, and you do: > Fair enough :) > > It would be a minor thing if I hadn't told people this is the way to > find > > out the number of messages in a list, and also to find the most recent > post > > to a list. > > we want to give it to you. Sure, sometimes it is harder than you imagine > or in our judgment it's not worth as much as something else we could do, > but you needn't be shy about asking for it. I'm also pretty sure it's > hardly a unique requirement, at least it won't be for long, between GDPR > and other worries about privacy of archived data in many contexts. > I hadn't thought about that one yet, but indeed, thank you. > > [And what's not working right is] the message count if you search > > for "*". It won't update to the right message count in the top > > middle of the page until I do a "rebuild_index". > > How much does time does cost to do that? If it's expensive enough that on > "monthly cleaning day" you've got some lists that stay unsynced for many > minutes or hours, we might need to rearchitect the index to be per list. > At the moment the entire list server has roughly 300.000 messages. >From memory last time it took slightly under an hour. A 300.000 count is a lot less than others have, but it makes it sort of okay for our server, today. If we time it right. It is a 24x7 service though, so even at the best timing there's risk for a few people to have degraded service on the archives while the index rebuilds. But right now I think if we time it right once per month it's probably okay. It would be nice if an improvement would be somewhere on a list of nice-to-haves. Or perhaps that list just only gets longer, it may well. :-) > I'm afraid "update" index only looks at the messages changed since the > last > > time update was run, and misses the fact that messages have disappeared > > from the beginning. > > Have you looked at the code to verify this? I agree it's consistent with > the Mailman behavior you see. Unfortunately I'm not sure that all the > indexers we claim to support would be able to suppose such deletions > without a full rebuild. > I have not verified it in the code, I aim to have a look at some point. Indeed I was writing this with the witnessed behaviour in mind. Thanks Stephen! Marco van Tol RIPE NCC _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list -- mailman-developers@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-developers-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-developers.python.org/ Mailman FAQ: https://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: https://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9
