On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote: > Hi Mick, > > On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100 > > Mick <michaelkintz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb. > > Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend. > > >Which one is best to use? What have you chosen? > > I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very > academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific > benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1]. > > Note, the mentioned benchmark page say: > > “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of > messages – >50k – to see anything interesting” > > Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within > Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring > it exactly – which I haven’t done yet). > > > References: > [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/contrib/hcache-bench>
Thanks Floyd, good information. I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt. I see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here. Is there a benefit from switching? -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
