On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 17:34:23 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>I wasted some time yesterday and today implementing a SQL storage
>plugin. It seems to be working, but:
> - Saving new messages is done in a regular INSERT statement, which is
>bad. PostgreSQL has at least this COPY TO command which could
On 1.4.2007, at 2.09, Charles Marcus wrote:
One of the biggest advantages I can think of is single instance
storage.
I was planning on implementing that for dbox also.
Timo? Can you elaborate on how thi sis implemented? Is the message
broken up into parts? How hard would it be to implement
hi.
I'm sure this is on hold in your head, but just in case.. Can this be
V2.0 minimum, please.
Thanks,
Ejay
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 17:34 +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> I wasted some time yesterday and today implementing a SQL storage
> plugin. It seems to be working, but:
>
> - Saving new messa
Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/31/2007 Stephen Lee wrote:
WRT size of the db, what about keeping just the message headers and
indices in the db and the body as a file? This is akin to some
content management systems where the file info is in a db and the
content resides as a file. Don't know what
On 3/31/2007 Stephen Lee wrote:
WRT size of the db, what about keeping just the message headers and
indices in the db and the body as a file? This is akin to some
content management systems where the file info is in a db and the
content resides as a file. Don't know what the logistics and
perfor
Stephen Lee wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:30 +0200, Martin Hudec wrote:
Well imagine that we have 100 users in company, each of them has 200M
mailbox usually filled at least to 150M. That gives us 15G database (I
am not counting administrative overhead like indexes etc.).
Lovely. What
On Mar 31, 2007, at 11:36am, Stephen Lee wrote:
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:30 +0200, Martin Hudec wrote:
Well imagine that we have 100 users in company, each of them has 200M
mailbox usually filled at least to 150M. That gives us 15G
database (I
am not counting administrative overhead like i
WRT size of the db, what about keeping just the message headers and
indices in the db and the body as a file?
Sounds very Outlook/$Exchange that...
--
Juha
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 19:30 +0200, Martin Hudec wrote:
>
> Well imagine that we have 100 users in company, each of them has 200M
> mailbox usually filled at least to 150M. That gives us 15G database (I
> am not counting administrative overhead like indexes etc.).
>
> Lovely. What would such da
Marc Perkel wrote:
I've been waiting till 1.0 came out to ask for new features like SQL. I
don't think that SQL is a waste of time at all. In fact I believe that
SQL is the future of email storage. SQL has a lot of advantages that
will be tapped once people start using it. Yes - it is probably
Timo Sirainen wrote:
I wasted some time yesterday and today implementing a SQL storage
plugin. It seems to be working, but:
- Saving new messages is done in a regular INSERT statement, which is
bad. PostgreSQL has at least this COPY TO command which could be used
instead.
depending on the c
On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 08:46 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
> I've been waiting till 1.0 came out to ask for new features like SQL. I
> don't think that SQL is a waste of time at all. In fact I believe that
> SQL is the future of email storage. SQL has a lot of advantages that
> will be tapped onc
Timo Sirainen wrote:
I wasted some time yesterday and today implementing a SQL storage
plugin. It seems to be working, but:
- Saving new messages is done in a regular INSERT statement, which is
bad. PostgreSQL has at least this COPY TO command which could be used
instead.
- It breaks in stre
I wasted some time yesterday and today implementing a SQL storage
plugin. It seems to be working, but:
- Saving new messages is done in a regular INSERT statement, which is
bad. PostgreSQL has at least this COPY TO command which could be used
instead.
- It breaks in stress testing
- It's not th
14 matches
Mail list logo