DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date
	:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=EY9uFMcgEoV8ot9h43HjByz1PyeTIr4aZBm9epwqV3m3/5XWSaKI2aktU/YH5B4qtI
	0fKjKp1nf1BKN1giUbUkczjSVVbyHCkQ0wSCiz0nZv9IVpLWtoDf5tf/ENTJbcLux/Do
	adAFfnG8XEL8sdvuc1KJhK4kOahDID7artTIk=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: amdragon@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <1306446621-sup-3184@brick>
References: <1306397849-sup-3304@brick> <877h9d9y5m.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<BANLkTi=3mQYJft4s9jGaoqSbcJvqhmZXyQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1306442683-sup-9315@brick> <20110526214302.GR29861@mit.edu>
	<1306446621-sup-3184@brick>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 22:41:44 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=Uk+bNB8sCZLVb86q-Kjfx1udEZA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: one-time-iterators
From: Austin Clements <amdragon@mit.edu>
To: Patrick Totzke <patricktotzke@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Patrick Totzke
<patricktotzke@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Austin Clements's message of Thu May 26 22:43:02 +0100 2011=
:
>> > > Though, Patrick, that solution doesn't address your problem.=A0 On t=
he
>> > > other hand, it's not clear to me what concurrent access semantics
>> > > you're actually expecting.=A0 I suspect you don't want the remaining
>> > > iteration to reflect the changes, since your changes could equally
>> > > well have affected earlier iteration results.
>> > That's right.
>> > > But if you want a
>> > > consistent view of your query results, something's going to have to
>> > > materialize that iterator, and it might as well be you (or Xapian
>> > > would need more sophisticated concurrency control than it has).=A0 B=
ut
>> > > this shouldn't be expensive because all you need to materialize are
>> > > the document ids; you shouldn't need to eagerly fetch the per-thread
>> > > information.
>> > I thought so, but it seems that Query.search_threads() already
>> > caches more than the id of each item. Which is as expected
>> > because it is designed to return thread objects, not their ids.
>> > As you can see above, this _is_ too expensive for me.
>>
>> I'd forgotten that constructing threads on the C side was eager about
>> the thread tags, author list and subject (which, without Istvan's
>> proposed patch, even requires opening and parsing the message file).
>> This is probably what's killing you.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what is your situation that you won't wind up paying
>> the cost of this iteration one way or the other and that the latency
>> of doing these tag changes matters?
>
> I'm trying to implement a terminal interface for notmuch in python
> that resembles sup.
> For the search results view, i read an initial portion from a Threads ite=
rator
> to fill my teminal window with threadline-widgets. Obviously, for a
> large number of results I don't want to go through all of them.
> The problem arises if you toggle a tag on the selected threadline and aft=
erwards
> continue to scroll down.

Ah, that makes sense.

>> > > Have you tried simply calling list() on your thread
>> > > iterator to see how expensive it is? =A0My bet is that it's quite ch=
eap,
>> > > both memory-wise and CPU-wise.
>> > Funny thing:
>> > =A0q=3DDatabase().create_query('*')
>> > =A0time tlist =3D list(q.search_threads())
>> > raises a NotmuchError(STATUS.NOT_INITIALIZED) exception. For some reas=
on
>> > the list constructor must read mere than once from the iterator.
>> > So this is not an option, but even if it worked, it would show
>> > the same behaviour as my above test..
>>
>> Interesting. =A0Looks like the Threads class implements __len__ and that
>> its implementation exhausts the iterator. =A0Which isn't a great idea in
>> itself, but it turns out that Python's implementation of list() calls
>> __len__ if it's available (presumably to pre-size the list) before
>> iterating over the object, so it exhausts the iterator before even
>> using it.
>>
>> That said, if list(q.search_threads()) did work, it wouldn't give you
>> better performance than your experiment above.
>>
>> > would it be very hard to implement a Query.search_thread_ids() ?
>> > This name is a bit off because it had to be done on a lower level.
>>
>> Lazily fetching the thread metadata on the C side would probably
>> address your problem automatically. =A0But what are you doing that
>> doesn't require any information about the threads you're manipulating?
> Agreed. Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to get a list of thread
> ids or a reliable iterator thereof by using the current python bindings.
> It would be enough for me to have the ids because then I could
> search for the few threads I actually need individually on demand.

There's no way to do that from the C API either, so don't feel left
out.  ]:--8)  It seems to me that the right solution to your problem
is to make thread information lazy (effectively, everything gathered
in lib/thread.cc:_thread_add_message).  Then you could probably
materialize that iterator cheaply.  In fact, it's probably worth
trying a hack where you put dummy information in the thread object
from _thread_add_message and see how long it takes just to walk the
iterator (unfortunately I don't think profiling will help much here
because much of your time is probably spent waiting for I/O).

I don't think there would be any downside to doing this for eager
consumers like the CLI.