Victor Duchovni:
> > > Also, with a little-endian base 52 queue-id, and hash depth of "2",
> > > we have 2704 directories to search, while big-endian 32 x 32 takes us
> > > to 977 directories as compared to 245 directories for big-endian base 16.
> >
> > Base 52 requires fewer levels of hashing than smaller bases, and
> > 52 with depth 3 or more seems to make little sense. So that is a
> > limitation in usability.
> >
> > I could just forget about lexicographical hashing and simply hash
> > the hexadecimal representation of the microseconds (extracted from
> > the queue file name and converted from base 52). With this there
> > would be no change in file distribution compared to Postfix 2.8.
>
> This is an interesting idea, also, no new sub-directories in existing
> queues. Is it worth the effort though? The code gets complex when there
> is a mixture of 2.8 and 2.9 style files in the queue.
It's really trivial code, given that most of the work was already
encapsulated in macros. We're dealing with trivially short strings,
so CPU performance is not a concern either.
I prefer the compactness of base52, but I don't like its behavior
with lexical queue hashing. I'm checking the code as discussed
above.
Looks like it will be more text explaining things in the docs than
actual code.
Wietse
