From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gsf@fruct.us (Gabriel Sean Farrell)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:33:07 -0500
Subject: [sup-talk] header cache
In-Reply-To: <1200990925-sup-1529@ausone.local>
References: <704d6aa20801150454j635ed24p63fd544579c6e148@mail.gmail.com>
	<1200453820-sup-4777@south>
	<1200514969-sup-7541@clarabella.clarabella>
	<1200516410-sup-1963@south>
	<1200519319-sup-915@clarabella.clarabella>
	<1200557516-sup-8444@ausone.local>
	<1200570003-sup-1529@clarabella.clarabella>
	<1200581670-sup-9273@ausone.local> <1200969359-sup-2816@south>
	<1200990925-sup-1529@ausone.local>
Message-ID: <20080123203307.GA31494@manheim.library.drexel.edu>

On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 09:40:05AM +0100, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Tue Jan 22 03:36:48 +0100 2008:
> > Reformatted excerpts from nicolas.pouillard's message of 2008-01-17:
> > > That's because Sup needs to compute a hash from file names to message
> > > ids.
> > 
> > Like IMAP headers, this is a one-time cost upon startup and could easily
> > be cached. Maildir shouldn't be significantly slower than mbox except
> > for this.
> 
> Looking  at  the  code  'scan_mailbox' seems to be called quite often (but not
> more than every 30 seconds).
> 
> I'm  wondering  if  peeking  a  file  in  a very large directory is as fast as
> seeking to a particular offset in a large file?

If you're really interested in speed comparisons between mbox and
maildir, http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/ is a good read.