From: Keith Packard <keithp@keithp.com>
To: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>, Jan Janak
	<jan@ryngle.com>
In-Reply-To: <87ocmv338r.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
References: <87fx87u3no.fsf@59A2.org> <874oon4pgv.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<f35dbb950911211250u5f0e8c05p56da7be3d48bbba8@mail.gmail.com>
	<87bpivtwr1.fsf@59A2.org> <87ocmv338r.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:16:24 -0800
Message-ID: <yunws1jpg6f.fsf@aiko.keithp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Asynchronous tagging
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:46:44 +0100, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote:

> So some investigation is needed to see how important that optimization
> is, and if it's important to see whether there's another way to keep the
> performance while being able to support renames. (Or alternately,
> allowing the user to configure an option saying, "I need to support
> renames even if that means that notmuch new is a bit slower.").

I'd suggest that the best way to make this more efficient would be to
capture directory contents (along with the directory mtime) and use that
to detect changes. If we assume that mail messages are never changed, we
could use that to avoid stat'ing files in directories too.

=2D-=20
keith.packard@intel.com

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLCILZQp8BWwlsTdMRAiyvAJ0TB0Pv5dX3bAQL9HOV/0xbR0QpWACeJt5N
s2vOZ9o6srYaESlmMu8zNzc=
=RbYF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--