Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:36:55 +0100
From: Stefan Schmidt <stefan@datenfreihafen.org>
To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
Message-ID: <20091121153655.GC19397@excalibur.local>
References: <20091121145111.GB19397@excalibur.local>
	<1258816372.8741.15.camel@rover>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1258816372.8741.15.camel@rover>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch
Precedence: list

Hello.

On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 08:12, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 15:51 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> 
> > Sadly that takes around 25 minutes here on an Intel Core2Duo notbeook (Thinkpad
> > X200s). I tried this several times now. CPU load was low (~10%) during this time
> > so it is mostly IO bound.
> 
> I see the same behavior on my notebook.  
> 
> I gather from talking to keithp that things like the 'state of already
> being read' aren't being picked up from the file names in the local
> Maildir yet.  Thus I suspect it's a fairly unusual / worst case scenario
> trying to start up with 178k (in my case) supposedly-unread messages
> tagged inbox.

Using the read flag during notmuch new would indeed be nice. But some further
testing brings some doubts that it is an overload due to to many unread
messages.

I executed "/usr/local/bin/notmuch search --sort=oldest-first tag:inbox" by hand
and from the 21 minutes it took it stayed around 20 in a state where no new
message where printed and then sudenly all the rest comes up.

In my case only 80 messages were printed before the gap. All of them had a wrong
year in the timestamp. 1900 and 1970. Maybe notmuch just comes into a bad state
with this dates?

Bdale, can you confirm this for your case?

I will remove these mails and re-generate the notmuch index to test this out
after dinner later today.

regards
Stefan Schmidt