From cfebdb7498454e5ff1c271906901ad32ae9a4ac9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jani Nikula Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 20:06:09 +0300 Subject: [PATCH] Re: Deduplication ? --- 26/d2cbe8e25ed585977669fb9846f65121db3763 | 109 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 109 insertions(+) create mode 100644 26/d2cbe8e25ed585977669fb9846f65121db3763 diff --git a/26/d2cbe8e25ed585977669fb9846f65121db3763 b/26/d2cbe8e25ed585977669fb9846f65121db3763 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5f14ba1b3 --- /dev/null +++ b/26/d2cbe8e25ed585977669fb9846f65121db3763 @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EAE1431FBC + for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:06:24 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id CCYUPGMmLCkc for ; + Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:06:16 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com (mail-wi0-f171.google.com + [209.85.212.171]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D7B2431FAE + for ; Mon, 2 Jun 2014 10:06:16 -0700 (PDT) +Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id cc10so5008597wib.4 + for ; Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:06:13 -0700 (PDT) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=1e100.net; s=20130820; + h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references + :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; + bh=O6RcBBKkVtQR85qqmLXWlxZHYEO+QkP6X9rWxRrWqw0=; + b=YxaW4/sNIOlBMj8C4BK4Nm5bWnh94sbXaZs+aPXBRopsxZ+uf42RFarFLkunl3NWD8 + I07Y2PjtntByjEMPhGsbzrG38Ypn4PQANnij881RL6OJk9yhSKp50PGLmtZ0mS+0Mh7n + efZxO1Xrnd6XHST8Xyk7LUY5y+efUhmEA/nz/T2q0LWMStKhx9jM+wQMFdfgZgE9Yl9I + LqA80brb+oBO82cK5BBOQXjbV5+aKFrJYwjlbCxKTENz65pkhxjcm/9WspQOJ0atUPdN + oOqwg83Ix9T/upCPCLorxT6g6SbYrZ0QXSJYTAZxBcPAUBXTevdTGFWPGaIqLbnwFtAS + HnTg== +X-Gm-Message-State: + ALoCoQkP4DDQBSF2cdVDqtxF4eswnUbYpGTcy9XPk6sDtL2keTojdTMIIDBk5eYC4zKVip4BBUPu +X-Received: by 10.180.90.51 with SMTP id bt19mr24467825wib.22.1401728773691; + Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:06:13 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw2-58c36f-91.dhcp.inet.fi. + [88.195.111.91]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id m2sm36855357wjw.3.2014.06.02.10.06.12 + for + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); + Mon, 02 Jun 2014 10:06:13 -0700 (PDT) +From: Jani Nikula +To: Mark Walters , + Tomi Ollila , Vladimir Marek , + notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: Deduplication ? +In-Reply-To: <87ppirqtfa.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +References: <20140602123212.GA12639@virt.cz.oracle.com> + <87d2ers9mi.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <87ppirqtfa.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.18+24~gfe8cd90 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:06:09 +0300 +Message-ID: <87y4xfz1fi.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:06:24 -0000 + +On Mon, 02 Jun 2014, Mark Walters wrote: +> Tomi Ollila writes: +> +>> On Mon, Jun 02 2014, Mark Walters wrote: +>> +>>> Vladimir Marek writes: +>>> If you want to save disk space then you could delete the duplicates +>>> after with something like +>>> +>>> notmuch search --output=files --format=text0 --duplicate=2 '*' piped to +>>> xargs -0 +>> +>> What if there are 3 duplicates (or 4... ;) +> +> I was assuming that it was merging 2 duplicate-free bunches of messages, +> but I guess the new 100000 might not be. In that case running the above +> repeatedly (ie until it is a no-op) would be fine. + +With 'notmuch new' in between the runs, obviously. + +Alternatively, find the biggest --duplicate=N which still outputs +something, and run the command for each N...2. + + +>> One should also have some message content heuristics to determine that the +>> content is indeed duplicate and not something totally different (not that +>> we can see the different content anyway... but...) +> +> That would be nice. + +And quite hard. + + +BR, +Jani. + -- 2.26.2