On Thu, 2008-06-26 at 17:26 +0200, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > Hi!, > > On mié, 2008-06-25 at 12:16 -0400, Jamie McCracken wrote: > > <snip> > > > > Not quite what I had in mind - the indexer should be dumb and fed stuff > > to index by the daemon. the exception is directories which need to be > > recursively scanned (not sure we need separate queues for them) > > > > I did it this way because 1) it's fully deterministic and 2) we > guarantee the queues are close to the smallest possible. If things were > in the same queue and you had a dir with say 100 subdirs and 200 files, > there's a good chance that plenty of those subdirs are expanded (and the > contained files pushed in the queue tail) before the files are > processed, which could make the queue grow considerably. > > Having a separate queue for directories makes the files queue just grow > up the necessary to contain the files in the last processed directory, > which seems to be quite memory friendly :)
yeah makes sense - thats what we currently do with dir_list jamie _______________________________________________ tracker-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/tracker-list
