[hypermail] Re: performance

 srose_at_direct.ca (Scott Rose) writes:
>Checking just now, I found my notes about my most recent tests of the performance
>of my DBM hack. To do the test, I created a tool (called "hyperfeed") that would
>pass one message at a time from an mbox to unique invocations of hypermail-
>running hypermail once in mbox-at-a-time mode isn't a good test of the
>performance for the case where, like I run all my archives, the messages are
>archived as they arrive. I did this test with a 750-message mbox, on a local ext2
>file system message store (Linux), back in October, 1999. I used GDBM as the dbm
>package, which is regrettably all my code supports. When run with my -g switch to
>enable the use of the DBM index, it took 78 seconds to complete. Without, 450
>seconds. I think that qualifies as significant. I used the same hypermail binary
>for both runs, the same file system, the same mbox, the same clock...

 I don't see this kind of speedup with the code you sent me. I see a speedup of slightly over 15% in your version (-g -u vs -u). I merged it in to the latest code, and see a speedup of only 3% there (the latest code without using -g is faster than the version you used, with -g they are the same speed).
 I suspect it's still worth including the gdbm code for NFS conditions and in order to eventually support message deletions and maybe to help in splitting archives into multiple directories with links between directories, but I want to think about that for a couple of days before I decide to check it in.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter McCluskey          | Fed up with democracy's problems? Examine Futarchy:
http://www.rahul.net/pcm | http://hanson.gmu.edu/futarchy.pdf or .ps