Lyndon Nerenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > You know, unless I'm missing something, the holes in our messages > > numbers could be considered a bug. I find it annoying to have to use > > "folder -pack" occasionally. If we kept our folders packed, then we > > could get rid of the folder -pack option. > > The overhead of renumbering potentially every message file in a folder > after every rmm is a potential performance killer. Think 'rmm 1' in > an NFS-mounted folder with 10K messages in it. That's an absurd > amount of traffic to throw at an NFS server on every message delete.
Right, but if we use unique, immutable message filenames, the message numbers would just be a view onto that namespace and thus would incur little IO overhead. Given your rmm example, though, it seems that because MH exposes message numbers in the UI, we might not be able to drop packf in any case. For example, if we did collapse message sequences on the fly, if you ran scan 1-5, show 1, and then rmm 1, a show 2 command would then show message 3 from the previous scan, which wouldn't be good. Oh well. Worth exploring. -- Bill Wohler <[email protected]> aka <[email protected]> http://www.newt.com/wohler/ GnuPG ID:610BD9AD _______________________________________________ Nmh-workers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
