MBOX-Line: From snowjn at aol.com  Tue Jun 15 14:34:26 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: John Snow <snowjn@aol.com>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:44 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] MOVE is a pipeline
In-Reply-To: <60C60CAD-FD75-4744-BDC0-4FB3F412CB80@iki.fi>
References: <1372616189.4386.1276624386644.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>	<1276626345.2916.50.camel@kurkku.sapo.corppt.com>	<484642146.4458.1276626832297.JavaMail.root@dogfood.zimbra.com>
	<4C17CBDA.6070604@gulbrandsen.priv.no> <4C17D434.5080807@aol.com>
	<60C60CAD-FD75-4744-BDC0-4FB3F412CB80@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <4C17F1E2.8060706@aol.com>

Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 15.6.2010, at 20.27, John Snow wrote:
>
>   
>> How does everyone handle a large folder, say 500,000 messages?  In order to process sequence numbers, you have to 
>> know which messages are in the set.  The few implementations I've seen do this by loading the messages into a cache.
>> This makes some command slow while the cache is loaded.  There is also a limit on how many messages can be loaded
>> in the cache.  If UID were the only way to reference a message, then I wouldn't need to cache the message list, I 
>> could just work directly from the database.   
>>     
>
> Many clients just fetch all of the flags from a mailbox each time they select it. I don't think getting rid of MSNs would help your performance with them.
>
> If a client accesses only the most recent messages, then you can just fetch their data (MSN-UID mapping, flags, ..?) from database. No need to waste memory/bandwidth/etc for messages that are never accessed.
>   
I agree, and that's how I handle it now.  I'd like to find a way to not 
need to load the MSN-UID mapping. Any ideas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20100615/256c4cfa/attachment.html>
