> One silly question, > How do we know which headers to cache? Ideally it would be customisable (even if needed to Define things at compile time, etc). Most people are after the header-cache-like-thing for webmail clients, or management reports/etc -- thus the ones I had below were the ones that came of interest to me. Even if the table were expanded to have 20 headers, only the people that wanted it would have to enable it - thus for the rest, there would be no overhead (especially if compile-time). > The headers are stored in the first messageblock in for the message. > > Suppose we stored the headers in a separate table and used the > database indexing facilities. > We could then do without a separate header cache, by just using > well formulated queries.
I did that previously, and the speed hit was quite profound each time someone did a search. I ended up writing a perl-script to batch-process and generate my own table cache every five minutes and when someone logged into webmail. Worked better, but still was icky. It all comes down to database load (related to my scalability Q's). You want to move complicated functions off the database in my opinion and let the database be a really fast, indexed filesystem. That way the SQL server can be run on a dual processor box/etc and you don't need to update to a much more expensive 4x processor box or icky pay-for databases to get clustering. As soon as you ask the database to do more than just searches (e.g. string analysis), it has to think about it. A table join is pretty efficient (with the right keys). Just my humble opinion :) /Mark > /Magnus > > Mark Mackay - Orcon wrote: > > Hi guys - > > > > Another quick question (first time I've really looked at > 2.0 other than > > listening to the list). > > > > Is 2.0 going to have any type of header cache (something > that's suited to > > the native-webmail clients everyone's no-doubt hacking away at? We > > implemented some patches to 1.x and posted them to a list a > while back which > > cached the: > > > > - size > > - attachement (y/n) > > - to > > - from > > - subject > > - priority > > - sent-date > > - received-date > > > > from message when they came in... I notice the 2.0 schema > doesn't seem to > > have anything in it for this (may have overlooked it, > hopefully not going > > blind). Is this planned or can it be? ;) ? > > > > Cheers, > > Mark. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dbmail mailing list > > Dbmail@dbmail.org > > https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Dbmail mailing list > Dbmail@dbmail.org > https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail >
