From: Mark Walters Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:57:08 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=3de68cb22e32c1901ec0e0ffe76297cdf307b3dd;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag --- diff --git a/9a/5201cd59a01f1ca49d6281d8c27774677d2684 b/9a/5201cd59a01f1ca49d6281d8c27774677d2684 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d0aad0bf0 --- /dev/null +++ b/9a/5201cd59a01f1ca49d6281d8c27774677d2684 @@ -0,0 +1,199 @@ +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 5745F431FB6 + for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:56:11 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.098 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 limawhzEDOrS for ; + Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:56:10 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37AF8431FAE + for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:56:10 -0800 (PST) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1RrI7o-0006c8-GV; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:56:05 +0000 +Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223] + helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69) + (envelope-from ) + id 1RrI7o-0005tc-4M; Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:56:04 +0000 +From: Mark Walters +To: Austin Clements +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] Add NOTMUCH_MESSAGE_FLAG_EXCLUDED flag +In-Reply-To: <20120128183340.GD17991@mit.edu> +References: <20120124011609.GX16740@mit.edu> + <1327367923-18228-2-git-send-email-markwalters1009@gmail.com> + <20120124024521.GY16740@mit.edu> <874nvg6qxn.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> + <20120128183340.GD17991@mit.edu> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11+132~g30df010 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.2.1 + (i486-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:57:08 +0000 +Message-ID: <8739azqt2j.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223 +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 4764223aab539717b6db5626964a5321 (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: - +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -1.8 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, + * medium trust + * [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org] + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay + * domain + * 0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +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: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:56:11 -0000 + +On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 13:33:40 -0500, Austin Clements wrote: +> Quoth Mark Walters on Jan 28 at 10:51 am: +> > +> > > > exclude_query = _notmuch_exclude_tags (query, final_query); +> > > > +> > > > - final_query = Xapian::Query (Xapian::Query::OP_AND_NOT, +> > > > - final_query, exclude_query); +> > > > + enquire.set_weighting_scheme (Xapian::BoolWeight()); +> > > > + enquire.set_query (exclude_query); +> > > > + +> > > > + mset = enquire.get_mset (0, notmuch->xapian_db->get_doccount ()); +> > > > + +> > > > + GArray *excluded_doc_ids = g_array_new (FALSE, FALSE, sizeof (unsigned int)); +> > > > + +> > > > + for (iterator = mset.begin (); iterator != mset.end (); iterator++) +> > > > + { +> > > > + unsigned int doc_id = *iterator; +> > > > + g_array_append_val (excluded_doc_ids, doc_id); +> > > > + } +> > > > + messages->base.excluded_doc_ids = talloc (query, _notmuch_doc_id_set); +> > > > + _notmuch_doc_id_set_init (query, messages->base.excluded_doc_ids, +> > > > + excluded_doc_ids); +> > > +> > > This might be inefficient for message-only queries, since it will +> > > fetch *all* excluded docids. This highlights a basic difference +> > > between message and thread search: thread search can return messages +> > > that don't match the original query and hence needs to know all +> > > potentially excluded messages, while message search can only return +> > > messages that match the original query. +> > +> > I now have some benchmarks (not run enough times to be hugely accurate +> > so ignore minor differences). The full results are below. The summary +> > is: +> > +> > Large-archive = 1 100 000 messages in 290 000 threads (about 10 years of +> > lkml). I mark 1 000 000 deleted +> > Small-archive = 70 000 messages in 35 000 threads. 10 000 marked +> > deleted. +> > +> > Doing the initial exclude work on the big collection takes about 0.8s +> > and on the small collection about 0.01s. So any query to the big +> > collection takes at least 0.8s longer and this all occurs before any +> > results appear. +> +> Interesting. Do you know where that time is spent? +> +> Also, it might be reasonable to assume that no more than, say, 10% of +> a person's mail store is excluded, but maybe that depends on how +> people use this feature. +> +> > I then implemented the exclude doing it once for each thread query in +> > _notmuch_create_thread. Roughly this made any query 50% slower. +> +> That's not terrible. +> +> > In normal front end use even the 0.8s is not totally unusable, but it is +> > totally unacceptable in the backend where a user might do something like +> > +> > for i in ` notmuch search --output=threads from:xxx ` ; +> > do +> > notmuch search --output=messages $i; +> > done +> > +> > to list all messages in all matching threads. +> > +> > So I think my conclusions are: +> > +> > (1) message only queries must be done without the full exclude. +> > (2) thread queries which only match one message should not do the full +> > exclude +> > (3) it would be nice to switch between the two approaches depending on +> > size but I don't see how to do that without extra(!) queries +> > (4) One possible might be do something that say does thirty threads with +> > the by thread method and then if not finished does the full exclude. +> > (5) thread-by-thread might be best for Jani's limit-match +> > id:"1327692900-22926-1-git-send-email-jani@nikula.org" +> > +> > Obviously, anything setting an exclude flag like this will be slower +> > (since it is doing more work): the question is are either of these (or a +> > combination like (4) above) acceptable? +> +> Or only mark matched messages as excluded. +> +> Here's another idea (actually, a rehash of an old idea). For message +> search do two queries, the original query and " AND +> ", and use this to keep everything in order and mark excluded +> messages. For thread search, use message search results so it's easy +> to both sort by unexcluded messages and include fully-excluded +> threads, but compute the excluded flag (either just for unmatched +> messages or for all messages) by examining each message's tags +> directly (which thread_add_message already iterates over, so this is +> easy and won't add any overhead). If the excluded query is fast, +> which I think it will be, I think this should get the best of all +> worlds and be fairly straightforward to implement (no asymmetries +> between the queries used for message and thread search). It would be +> easy and worth it to run the excluded query by hand on your test +> corpus; I suspect it will be much faster than 0.8s because the query +> already uses "Tmail", which is huge and doesn't seem to slow things +> down. + +I have tried your suggestion (still marking all messages) and it does +seem the way to go: the difference in speed is small from master is +small: between 0 and 10% for most of the tests. + +The code seems to work and I will post it in reply to this thread. + +The library code is reasonable (although whether messages matching an +exclude tag that has been specified in the query should be marked as +excluded is unclear). + +The cli stuff needs thought (about what it should do rather than +how to do it). + +I won't post the emacs stuff yet but I when I merge my various bits +together I should get different colour headerlines for excluded messages +and that they are initially shown collapsed. + +Best wishes + +Mark