54 lines
2.4 KiB
Plaintext
54 lines
2.4 KiB
Plaintext
MBOX-Line: From tss at iki.fi Wed Dec 20 11:34:18 2006
|
|
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
|
|
From: Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi>
|
|
Date: Fri Jun 8 12:34:38 2018
|
|
Subject: [Imap-protocol] Searching
|
|
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.0.81.0612201018450.10225@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
References: <1166603479.22214.298.camel@hurina>
|
|
<alpine.OSX.0.81.0612201018450.10225@pangtzu.panda.com>
|
|
Message-ID: <1166643258.22214.350.camel@hurina>
|
|
|
|
On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:40 -0800, Mark Crispin wrote:
|
|
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006, Timo Sirainen wrote:
|
|
> > RFC says: "In all search keys that use strings, a message matches the
|
|
> > key if the string is a substring of the field."
|
|
> >
|
|
> > Strictly reading this, it means that the SEARCH command can't really be
|
|
> > optimized with most of the normal search index algorithms/libraries,
|
|
> > because they support only matching from the beginning of words.
|
|
> >
|
|
> > So, in case I wanted to use such indexes, what do you think I should do?
|
|
>
|
|
> Implement SEARCH according to the IMAP specification. If a library search
|
|
> routine does not fufill the IMAP specification, then it is unsuitable for
|
|
> use with IMAP SEARCH.
|
|
|
|
That's what I was thinking, just wanted to make sure that I wouldn't
|
|
waste time on doing it in a more complex way than necessary.
|
|
|
|
> If you are worried about performance, I suggest that you look into one of
|
|
> the optimizing algorithms for fast search. UW and Cyrus use a Boyer-Moore
|
|
> fast search which is quite a bit faster than the straightforward linear
|
|
> search.
|
|
|
|
Optimizing the string search would help some, but for large mailboxes
|
|
it's still a bit too slow. People want instant search results
|
|
nowadays. :)
|
|
|
|
> > 2) Add some X-NONEXACT-BODY search extension. Or use COMPARATOR somehow?
|
|
>
|
|
> The problem with one-server extensions is that nobody uses them. Feel
|
|
> free to do so anyway, as long as you implement the standard SEARCH
|
|
> correctly; but it will languish in obscurity.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps. I think it depends on how badly mail admins want it. If it's
|
|
only a small s/BODY/X-NONEXACT-BODY/ replace for their webmail code,
|
|
it'll get usage at least within Dovecot community.
|
|
-------------- next part --------------
|
|
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
|
|
Name: signature.asc
|
|
Type: application/pgp-signature
|
|
Size: 196 bytes
|
|
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
|
|
URL: <http://mailman13.u.washington.edu/pipermail/imap-protocol/attachments/20061220/ad8620f1/attachment.sig>
|