Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Floyd Anderson]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 14:42:49 +0100
Mick  wrote:

On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote:

Hi Mick,

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100

Mick  wrote:
>So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.

Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.

>Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?

I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very
academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific
benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].

Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:

“[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”

Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within
Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring
it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).


References:
  [1] 


Thanks Floyd, good information.

I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt.  I
see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here.  Is there a
benefit from switching?


I think yes but I’m also using both here. Mutt for testing different 
behaviour (sometimes issues) of NeoMutt and NeoMutt as as my day-to-day 
mail client workhorse.


The main reason for my switch to NeoMutt was that I’ve had no luck with 
colourisation in Mutt (nearly two years ago). TBH, afterwards I realised 
that the problem was sitting in front of the screen and used 
sys-libs/slang instead of sys-libs/ncurses), so no reason for a switch.


But I like the faster development/release cycle, the goal to clean up 
the 20 years old code base and some features [1] of NeoMutt, e.g. 
Lua-scripting, sidebar; which sometimes find their way into Mutt. I have 
no experiences contributing patches to Mutt but regarded to NeoMutt, it 
meet my expectations and that is fun.


Back to the topic, with a another example. As far as I can tell you 
cannot change the hcache backend without recompiling Mutt where NeoMutt 
implements the ‘$header_cache_backend’ configuration variable for.


But in the end I can only say forget all things above, I’m only more 
familiar with NeoMutt than with Mutt.



References:
 [1] 



--
Regards,
floyd

Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Mick]

On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote:
> Hi Mick,
> 
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100
> 
> Mick  wrote:
> >So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.
> 
> Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.
> 
> >Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?
> 
> I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very
> academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific
> benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].
> 
> Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:
> 
> “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
> messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”
> 
> Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within
> Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring
> it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).
> 
> 
> References:
>   [1] 

Thanks Floyd, good information.

I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt.  I 
see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here.  Is there a 
benefit from switching?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Floyd Anderson]

Hi Mick,

On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100
Mick  wrote:

So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.


Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend.


Which one is best to use? What have you chosen?


I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very 
academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific 
benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1].


Note, the mentioned benchmark page say:

   “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of
   messages – >50k – to see anything interesting”

Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within 
Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring 
it exactly – which I haven’t done yet).



References:
 [1] 


--
Regards,
floyd

[gentoo-user] Mutt database option

[Mick]

Hi All,

A mutt update today complained about which database to use for hcache:

!!! Problem resolving dependencies for mail-client/mutt from @selected  
.. done!

!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "mail-client/mutt" has unmet requirements.
- mail-client/mutt-1.9.4-r1::gentoo USE="crypt gdbm gpg hcache imap lmdb mbox 
nls nntp pop sasl smime smtp ssl -berkdb -debug -doc -gnutls -gpgme -idn -
kerberos -libressl -notmuch -pgp_classic (-prefix) -qdbm (-selinux) -slang -
smime_classic -tokyocabinet -vanilla" ABI_X86="(64)"

  The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
hcache? ( exactly-one-of ( berkdb gdbm lmdb qdbm tokyocabinet ) )
  
  The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression:
hcache? ( exactly-one-of ( berkdb gdbm lmdb qdbm tokyocabinet ) ) imap? ( 
ssl ) pop? ( ssl ) nntp? ( ssl ) smime? ( ssl !gnutls ) smime_classic? ( ssl !
gnutls ) smtp? ( ssl ) sasl? ( any-of ( imap pop smtp nntp ) ) kerberos? ( 
any-of ( imap pop smtp nntp ) )

So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb.  
Which one is best to use?  What have you chosen?

-- 
Regards,
Mick

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.