Dear Marc, Noted. This is starting to make a lot of sense. Of course, more computing power, hence more performance. Also filesystems and such all have and effect on the outcome. I might experiment with adding more computing power and seeing the result. My mailbox does not have many users so I might try that. Currently running a 2gb RAM with 2core processors.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Marc Stürmer <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 27.01.2015 um 03:24 schrieb Kevin Laurie: > > Hi Thomas, >> That's very interesting. >> Below is my search result. Any idea why is my result so slow:- >> Appreciate if you could advise. >> > > It depends on a couple of facts. Full text searches must go through a > number of bottle necks, depending on your installation, namely: > > a) type of disk drive(s), > b) way of installation of those drives, > c) the underlying file system itself, > d) the storage format being chosen to save the mails, > e) how many users you've got on your system, > f) memory of your system, > g) CPU power of your system and > h) how busy your system is. > > If you got for example a lonely box with let's sax four gigs of RAM and > you are using it by yourself only, chances are high enough that even with a > big enough up time most of your mails are in the file system cache of your > OS. Meaning a full text search would happen mostly in RAM and therefor of > course would be blazingly fast. > > If you take the same machine and let it serve let's say about 2000 > mailboxes, this would be a very different kind of matter. Your file system > cache would be flushed frequently and full text searches without index > would be way slower, because now those search actually mean I/O operations > for Dovecot on your type of storage. > > If you really want consistent, fast full text search speeds on a busy box, > incremental full text indexing is the only way to go. > > If you are the only user of a big box chances are high you get similar > results without. >
