Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-10 Thread Brendan Cully
On Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 16:21, Thomas Roessler wrote: > On 2008-09-10 12:53:41 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > > > This reads fine to me. I'm not sure I'm crazy about the > > SHORT_STRING change in compare_* though - it'd be nicer if we > > could just do fewer comparisons. I grant that we

Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-10 Thread Thomas Roessler
On 2008-09-10 12:53:41 -0700, Brendan Cully wrote: > This reads fine to me. I'm not sure I'm crazy about the > SHORT_STRING change in compare_* though - it'd be nicer if we > could just do fewer comparisons. I grant that we use fixed-length > buffers all over the place. Some day maybe we should th

Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-10 Thread Brendan Cully
On Sunday, 07 September 2008 at 16:12, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Sorting by to or from header is inacceptably slow for large > mailboxes if reverse_alias is enabled, and if there is even a modest > number of aliases in place (here: 500). The main culprit is the > reverse alias lookup code which doe

Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-08 Thread Dan Fandrich
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:56:13AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Out of curiosity, mind reposting that patch so we can see which > one's better? ;-) It's not really a question of which is better because they're both addressing different parts of the code--aliases versus groups. Attached is my t

Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-08 Thread Thomas Roessler
On 2008-09-07 22:24:58 -0700, Dan Fandrich wrote: >> Sorting by to or from header is inacceptably slow for large >> mailboxes if reverse_alias is enabled, and if there is even a >> modest number of aliases in place (here: 500). The main >> culprit is the reverse alias lookup code which does a lin

Re: [patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-07 Thread Dan Fandrich
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 04:12:18PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Sorting by to or from header is inacceptably slow for large > mailboxes if reverse_alias is enabled, and if there is even a modest > number of aliases in place (here: 500). The main culprit is the > reverse alias lookup code which

[patch] sorting efficiency

2008-09-07 Thread Thomas Roessler
Sorting by to or from header is inacceptably slow for large mailboxes if reverse_alias is enabled, and if there is even a modest number of aliases in place (here: 500). The main culprit is the reverse alias lookup code which does a linear search through a linked list. That code is invoked each ti