thank you very much for help!
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 18.6.2012, at 20.23, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
Anyway, fts-lucene backend works better than fts-squat.
Better in what respect?
less than a second (when disk I/O was needed) fulltext search over 1 mails
doesn't look
On 18.6.2012, at 20.23, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> Anyway, fts-lucene backend works better than fts-squat.
> Better in what respect?
>
> less than a second (when disk I/O was needed) fulltext search over 1
> mails doesn't look bad :)
Squat index updates are somewhat slow, especially if the i
always work very well.
what's wrong?
Fixed: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/4ce1f9649592
Thanks. so - my post actually got right. sorry for repost!
just got this delayed!
Anyway, fts-lucene backend works better than fts-squat.
Better in what respect?
less than a second (when disk
i repost my question as it probably wasn't received properly - i did it
just after subscribing possibly too early. thanks for answers
--
just installed dovecot with fts_squat
config attached after message.
When i telnet to imap server and execute by ha
On 16.6.2012, at 13.55, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
> even search all body "someword" doesn't work.
>
> while
>
> search body "someword"
>
> always work very well.
>
> what's wrong?
Fixed: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/4ce1f9649592
Anyway, fts-lucene backend works better than fts-squat.
When i telnet to imap server and execute by hand
1 login user password
select foldername
search body "someword"
sorry it was 2 and 3 just like 1 at login.
it works fine, and at blazing speed except first run (indexing).
i already indexed everything by doveadm index offline to prevent server
just installed dovecot with fts_squat
config attached after message.
When i telnet to imap server and execute by hand
1 login user password
select foldername
search body "someword"
it works fine, and at blazing speed except first run (indexing).
i already indexed everything by doveadm index offl
