Actually that same header indexing behavior was already in v2.1. But I found
the real problem now: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.2/rev/febedba15c7e
That bug was actually already in v2.1, but because memory was always allocated
from stack it wasn't causing as many problems.
On 18 Aug 2014, at
So should I now be trying just this patch or both (including the one
you posted before) ?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
Actually that same header indexing behavior was already in v2.1. But I found
the real problem now:
Just this one. The previous one was a mistake.
On 20 Aug 2014, at 13:31, Akash akbwiz+dove...@gmail.com wrote:
So should I now be trying just this patch or both (including the one
you posted before) ?
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi wrote:
Actually that same
Hi everyone,
While examining dovecot versions v2.1 and v2.2 for their lucene search
performances, I have noticed a huge difference in the index sizes
created by them. Both versions were compiled on same system, against
same libclucene, same configure options and were used with same
On 18 Aug 2014, at 09:42, Akash akbwiz+dove...@gmail.com wrote:
390M vs 1.5G. That is a huge difference in size. Why is that?
Can you test if the attached patch shrinks it back? I had been planning on
making that also configurable. There might be something else also causing it.
diff
Thanks for checking. The patch didn't make any significant difference.
Now its 1.3G instead of 1.5G.
root@server:~# ls -lh /home/admin/mails/lucene-indexes
total 1.3G
-rw--- 1 nobody nogroup 1.3G Aug 18 11:30 _4a.cfs
-rw--- 1 nobody nogroup 20 Aug 18 11:30 segments.gen
-rw--- 1
