On 5.1.2010, at 7.44, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > As we can see from the 1% I/O wait on CPU0 and 0% on CPU1, it's seems pretty > clear that the CPUs are being occupied by the dovecot search code, not by disk > I/O.
v1.1+ has somewhat faster search code. At least it's using boyer-moore with some of my own uglyness to make it support incremental searches. Wonder if there's a nicer and faster way to do that than what I implemented.
