1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>
\r
2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
\r
5 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71C72431FAF
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5
\r
12 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled
\r
13 Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
\r
14 by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
\r
15 with ESMTP id tn6ZifxivhIS for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
16 Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
\r
17 Received: from mail-ea0-f171.google.com (mail-ea0-f171.google.com
\r
18 [209.85.215.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
\r
19 (No client certificate requested)
\r
20 by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6D65431FAE
\r
21 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:25:42 -0700 (PDT)
\r
22 Received: by mail-ea0-f171.google.com with SMTP id n15so609148ead.2
\r
23 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:25:41 -0700 (PDT)
\r
24 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
\r
25 d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
\r
26 h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references
\r
27 :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
\r
28 bh=b09i//JDzWOD3kFoHLCAdHflnaXHqgr1W+ZprFPGD6w=;
\r
29 b=Qh2PsupbIAbZXx0ycMXX/Cw2p9c+37AoMtkLIlxI5e7aKruP4tOYhVp+Q3aT3vyeOD
\r
30 d+86l74LIPgPAdGEId2mWqAksjTeFydoPxczkpFS2h2DnVjQLc0tqrOXcxQfcNnWXWv7
\r
31 tTwA2NDqddEqc5nhs+eHroNrf27yGK8zj7dd9R/Kb52Q4+xKuoRblBFX/LRv5cLnD9R2
\r
32 vQY1INq8hjsHj0I3zo+Pkb+cpsFRxUGXFvyTXV+tDmTPWZIQ73dDRl2cgYchB2vJrKKd
\r
33 d9X12hTlxI1Fy8ahSLP0qna91XQalk+mfwKK+DdjZiLCdb6pbEq8eqUyNUHRNTum0cI8
\r
36 ALoCoQlhcKb/W/p77YOmjwvvLGBi9AmQSjlOKs4Tp5YOO99Wt1zpbWF6ImJptIrmiXWCQ0bgSqBq
\r
37 X-Received: by 10.14.122.132 with SMTP id t4mr13771958eeh.20.1381343140206;
\r
38 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
\r
39 Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi.
\r
41 by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m54sm91689038eex.2.1969.12.31.16.00.00
\r
42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
\r
43 Wed, 09 Oct 2013 11:25:38 -0700 (PDT)
\r
44 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
\r
45 To: Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU>
\r
46 Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] search: Add stable queries to thread search results
\r
47 In-Reply-To: <20131009143658.GQ21611@mit.edu>
\r
48 References: <1381185201-25197-1-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
\r
49 <1381185201-25197-9-git-send-email-amdragon@mit.edu>
\r
50 <87fvsaao2q.fsf@nikula.org> <20131009143658.GQ21611@mit.edu>
\r
51 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.16+88~g563143a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
\r
52 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
\r
53 Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 21:25:39 +0300
\r
54 Message-ID: <87a9iil2sc.fsf@nikula.org>
\r
56 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
57 Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
58 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
59 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13
\r
61 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
62 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
63 List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
64 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
65 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
\r
66 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
67 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
68 List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
69 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
70 X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2013 18:25:50 -0000
\r
72 On Wed, 09 Oct 2013, Austin Clements <amdragon@MIT.EDU> wrote:
\r
73 > Quoth Jani Nikula on Oct 09 at 9:41 am:
\r
74 >> Also one talloc less. Which brings me to the main worry:
\r
75 >> performance. What's the impact?
\r
77 > Seems to be about 1%-3% for CLI search (tested on the medium corpus).
\r
78 > It's hard to measure what the effect on Emacs search is, though I
\r
79 > would expect it to be similarly negligible.
\r
81 I can live with that. :)
\r
83 > Some work I did several attempts at this ago suggests that this slows
\r
84 > down tagging (though I doubt it would be noticeable for single
\r
85 > threads), but I also found that switching to docid-based queries
\r
86 > significantly sped things up:
\r
87 > id:CAH-f9WsPj=1Eu=g3sOePJgCTBFs6HrLdLq18xMEnJ8aZ00yCEg@mail.gmail.com
\r
88 > Actually, docid queries probably make tagging faster than it is *now*,
\r
89 > but I didn't measure that when I did the experiments.
\r
91 Looks like there's a few hurdles in adding that concept
\r
92 nicely. Something for the future.
\r