>There was a fair bit of variability but it was no worse than >twice as slow and often close to par.
Um ... are we looking at the same results? Because I would classify the results as "on average, more than twice as worse", and I could NOT in any universe say "often close to par" (I am going by the results that were posted to this mailing list). And that was only when running "mhparam version", because "scan" SEGV'd. Even your results fell squarely into "twice as bad". In: http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2018-02/msg00083.html you said: >And the programs I tried worked fine. Running best scan time >for 200K messages, scan+gc takes 13.5 seconds while the >regular scan 7.4 seconds. To me a performance penalty of 50% is not worth it, but I'd be willing to hear from others. --Ken -- Nmh-workers https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
