Re: nomuch_addresses.py

diff --git a/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 b/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..a29154f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851
@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+Return-Path: <prvs=39138bebc=jrosenthal@jhu.edu>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7616B431FB6\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:33 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -2.3\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id mC2gBWE+O1Cg for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from ipex2.johnshopkins.edu (ipex2.johnshopkins.edu [162.129.8.151])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56EE4431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,458,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="127519469"\r
+Received: from unknown (HELO watt) ([10.161.33.18])\r
+       by ipex2.johnshopkins.edu with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA;\r
+       21 Feb 2012 11:33:28 -0500\r
+Received: from jkr by watt with local (Exim 4.76)\r
+       (envelope-from <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>)\r
+       id 1Rzseo-00028H-Oj; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:33:38 -0500\r
+From: Jesse Rosenthal <jrosenthal@jhu.edu>\r
+To: Daniel Schoepe <daniel@schoepe.org>,\r
+       Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>,\r
+       Philippe LeCavalier <support@plecavalier.com>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: nomuch_addresses.py\r
+In-Reply-To: <87zkccjnst.fsf@schoepe.localhost>\r
+References: <87r4xur3rv.fsf@plc.plecavalier.com>\r
+       <87fweamenf.fsf@schoepe.localhost>\r
+       <20120221091509.8534.59492@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de>\r
+       <87zkccjnst.fsf@schoepe.localhost>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+192~g36ce7e3 (http://notmuchmail.org)\r
+       Emacs/24.0.93.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:33:38 -0500\r
+Message-ID: <87boosjgd9.fsf@jhu.edu>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:33:33 -0000\r
+\r
+On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:53:06 +0100, Daniel Schoepe <daniel@schoepe.org> wrote:\r
+> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:15:09 -0000, Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:\r
+> The reason I mentioned nottoomuch-addresses at all, is that completion\r
+> itself is _a lot_ faster (at least for me), compared to\r
+> addrlookup. According to the wiki, notmuch-addresses.py is even slower\r
+> than addrlookup, so I thought (and still think) that it was worth\r
+> mentioning. Of course, one could rewrite the database-generation part in\r
+> python using the bindings, but I personally don't think it's that\r
+> necessary.\r
+\r
+I'm not sure what speed comparisons were being used -- I think it was\r
+Sebastian comparing vala to python. In any case, using\r
+notmuch_addresses.py to look up a common prefix ("Jes") on a slowish\r
+computer takes 0.2 seconds. So I'm not sure if the speed is all that\r
+much of an issue. It might be a question of cache temperature, though --\r
+it'll probably take longer the first time you run it. Still, even trying\r
+something out on a cold cache, it seems to be about a second.\r
+\r
+I guess the question is whether having a second database is worth those\r
+extra fractions of a second. I could totally see how it would be for\r
+some.\r