Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
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 56D35431FBF;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:39:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
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 TIPMgAMxrsT8; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from yoom.home.cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DAF3431FAE;
	Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yoom.home.cworth.org (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 36B44254306; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:39:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Mark Anderson <MarkR.Anderson@amd.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <3wdskb8oh77.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>
References: <3wdskb8oh77.fsf@testarossa.amd.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:39:09 -0800
Message-ID: <87hbroyyf6.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: Re: [notmuch] Rather simple optimization for notmuch tag
X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:39:11 -0000

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:49:00 -0700, Mark Anderson <MarkR.Anderson@amd.com> =
wrote:
> I was updating my poll script that tags messages, and a common idiom is
> to put
>  tag +mytag <search_terms> and not tag:mytag
>=20
> I don't know anything about efficiency, but for the simple single-tag
> case, couldn't we imply the "and not tag:mytag" from the +mytag action
> list for the tag command?

On one level, it really shouldn't be a performance issue to tag messages
that already have a particular tag. (And in fact, the recently proposed
patches to fix Xapian defect 250 even address this I think.)

In the meantime, it is fairly annoying to have to type this, and yes,
the tag command could infer that and append it to the search string
automatically. That's a good idea, really.

> The similar (dual?, rusty math terminology, beware of Math-tetanus) case
> of "tag -mytag <search-terms> and tag:mytag" could be similarly optimized,
> since the tag removal action ought to be a null action in the case that
> the search terms matched on a thread or message, but the tag to be
> removed isn't attached to the message/thread returned.

Yes, that would work too.

One potential snag with both ideas is that the "notmuch tag"
command-line as currently implemented allows for multiple tag additions
and removals with a single search. So the optimization here couldn't be
used unless there was just a single tag action.

So that's another reason to really just want the lower-level
optimization to be in place.

=2DCarl


--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLK74+6JDdNq8qSWgRAnO2AJ9yqhPa23LeXMRc5oYUEpbkP4JsrQCeOHPR
2AyrmAB07iysMn0XGTHcffw=
=fKqk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--