From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E77D431FBF; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:26:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NuJ3YNtxrIW9; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42D1B431FAE; Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:26:51 -0800 (PST) From: Carl Worth To: Stefan Schmidt , Bdale Garbee In-Reply-To: <20091121153655.GC19397@excalibur.local> References: <20091121145111.GB19397@excalibur.local> <1258816372.8741.15.camel@rover> <20091121153655.GC19397@excalibur.local> Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:26:39 +0100 Message-ID: <87d43b4wmo.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:26:52 -0000 On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:36:55 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > I executed "/usr/local/bin/notmuch search --sort=oldest-first tag:inbox" by hand > and from the 21 minutes it took it stayed around 20 in a state where no new > message where printed and then sudenly all the rest comes up. That's actually the expected behavior currently. It used to be that "notmuch search" on the command line wouldn't present any results until everything was available. I recently threw in a hack to present the first 100 thread results quickly and only then does it sit and spin before all the results are available. I suppose it wouldn't be any harder for it to keep returning chunks of 100 threads at a time, (though this will slow down the final result a bit---perhaps not significantly). And I wouldn't really mind any slowdown there anyway, since any *real* interface should be calling "notmuch search" in small chunks anyway. So I'll go ahead and do that. > In my case only 80 messages were printed before the gap. All of them had a wrong > year in the timestamp. 1900 and 1970. Maybe notmuch just comes into a bad state > with this dates? I don't think the bogus dates are throwing anything off. It's more likely that you just have a number of messages with no Date header on them at all. And for such messages, notmuch just chooses a time_t value of 0 so you'll see whatever that 0 maps to on your system---a date of 1970 there is not surprising. :-) > I will remove these mails and re-generate the notmuch index to test this out > after dinner later today. See my other mail. You may want to tweak the behavior of "notmuch new" before running it again. (I would not expect the results to be any different from running it again with no change.) -Carl