On Fri, 2014-11-07 at 07:34 +0100, Milan Crha wrote: > On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 21:41 +0000, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-11-06 at 06:39 -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > > > So either > > > (a) Evolution did not ask the server to do the search > > > - or - > > > (b) their implementation of IMAP search is lame. > > > > Without tracing Evo, I can't say which of these is the answer, > > though I suspect it's probably (a). Google obviously does do search > > (duh) and there's no reason why it should do it badly just because > > it's an IMAP connection, even if their IMAP implementation is not > > the best. I don't know how Evo decides whether the server can do > > searching. > > > > Hi, > I tried to trace it (better know than guess). I invoked a simple "body > contains evolution" search on a GMail Inbox folder from evolution and > that was done server-side, as can be seen here: > H02430 UID SEARCH BODY "evolution" > * SEARCH 112 116 376 468 748 > H02430 OK SEARCH completed (Success) > > I think it depends on the search itself, but the IMAPx tries to search > as much on the server as it can. Searching in summary headers is left > for a local search, of course.
Interesting. I don't understand why it's so much slower than the direct webmail search. Perhaps it's iterating over the subscribed folders, whereas the direct case just looks everywhere by default. poc _______________________________________________ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
