Re: [hypermail] Databases/performance

From: Peter C. McCluskey <pcm_at_rahul.net_at_hypermail-project.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 17:46:20 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <20010221014620.088141D9F_at_foxtrot.rahul.net>

 srose_at_direct.ca (Scott Rose) writes:
>On an entirely different note, I have code that improves the performance
>of hypermail, particularly in the case of large archives- hypermail
>opens each file in an archive to build new indices each time a message
>arrives when you run in message-at-a-time mode, and it's desperately
>expensive. My approach uses a GDBM index so that a whole lot less I/O
>has to take place. I've been waiting for 2.0 to ship before bringing
>this up again... I mentioned it to Kent a year or so ago. Any interest?
>It should be generalized beyond GDBM to be most widely useful...

 We definitely need to pay some attention to Hypermail's performance, which leaves much to be desired, and I suspect there would be other advantages to using a database.
 Does anyone have a good argument against adopting dbm/gdbm? I've made very little use of them, and don't know much about the drawbacks, like whether it would create significant installation problems.

 I will also look at your monthly rotation script before too long.

>BTW, is one mailing list enough for this project? Using the same list
>for coordinating development, fielding bug reports, and providing user
>support means that I am often loathe to post.

 I don't know. A separate list for user support might not attract enough expert interest that the questions would get answered.

---

Peter McCluskey | Fed up with democracy's problems? Examine Futarchy: http://www.rahul.net/pcm | http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf or .ps Received on Wed 21 Feb 2001 03:49:49 AM GMT