From dd1b796fe8f8eba942f6b363ef5de79a3a874ac4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jesse Rosenthal Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:33:38 +1900 Subject: [PATCH] Re: nomuch_addresses.py --- ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 79 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 diff --git a/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 b/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a29154fbe --- /dev/null +++ b/ab/636f0fd6becb8b1fa5f2f547ec03f34b0b0851 @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ +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 7616B431FB6 + for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:33 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -2.3 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[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 mC2gBWE+O1Cg for ; + Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST) +Received: from ipex2.johnshopkins.edu (ipex2.johnshopkins.edu [162.129.8.151]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56EE4431FAE + for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:33:29 -0800 (PST) +X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,458,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="127519469" +Received: from unknown (HELO watt) ([10.161.33.18]) + by ipex2.johnshopkins.edu with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; + 21 Feb 2012 11:33:28 -0500 +Received: from jkr by watt with local (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from ) + id 1Rzseo-00028H-Oj; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:33:38 -0500 +From: Jesse Rosenthal +To: Daniel Schoepe , + Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>, + Philippe LeCavalier , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: nomuch_addresses.py +In-Reply-To: <87zkccjnst.fsf@schoepe.localhost> +References: <87r4xur3rv.fsf@plc.plecavalier.com> + <87fweamenf.fsf@schoepe.localhost> + <20120221091509.8534.59492@thinkbox.jade-hamburg.de> + <87zkccjnst.fsf@schoepe.localhost> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.11.1+192~g36ce7e3 (http://notmuchmail.org) + Emacs/24.0.93.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:33:38 -0500 +Message-ID: <87boosjgd9.fsf@jhu.edu> +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: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:33:33 -0000 + +On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:53:06 +0100, Daniel Schoepe wrote: +> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:15:09 -0000, Justus Winter <4winter@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote: +> The reason I mentioned nottoomuch-addresses at all, is that completion +> itself is _a lot_ faster (at least for me), compared to +> addrlookup. According to the wiki, notmuch-addresses.py is even slower +> than addrlookup, so I thought (and still think) that it was worth +> mentioning. Of course, one could rewrite the database-generation part in +> python using the bindings, but I personally don't think it's that +> necessary. + +I'm not sure what speed comparisons were being used -- I think it was +Sebastian comparing vala to python. In any case, using +notmuch_addresses.py to look up a common prefix ("Jes") on a slowish +computer takes 0.2 seconds. So I'm not sure if the speed is all that +much of an issue. It might be a question of cache temperature, though -- +it'll probably take longer the first time you run it. Still, even trying +something out on a cold cache, it seems to be about a second. + +I guess the question is whether having a second database is worth those +extra fractions of a second. I could totally see how it would be for +some. -- 2.26.2