From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD86E6DE01CE for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:50:01 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9_UOWkOTwMda for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:50:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D01886DE01BB for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 12:50:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gPvvB-00077D-Dw; Thu, 22 Nov 2018 15:49:57 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 17141 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:49:56 -0000 From: David Bremner To: Markus Weimar Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: [FEATURE] Purge ignored messages from index In-Reply-To: <20181122192628.GC28358@lati.localdomain> References: <20181122124515.GB28358@lati.localdomain> <878t1l2f1p.fsf@tethera.net> <20181122192628.GC28358@lati.localdomain> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 16:49:56 -0400 Message-ID: <87muq0rg5n.fsf@tethera.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 20:50:02 -0000 Markus Weimar writes: > Thanks for your reply! I only installed notmuch today, so please take thi= s into account when considering my thoughts. > > On Thu, 2018-11-22 13:33:06 -0400, David Bremner wrote: >> My first instinct would be to leave new as is, but change reindex to pay >> attention to some ignore parameter. > > =C2=B4new=C2=B4 already removes messages from the index if the files are > gone. Removing those but keeping newly ignored messages seems > inconsistent to me and it did confuse me. Notmuch new works very hard to not visit files that haven't changed. Changing this would have a big negative performance impact, afaik. I care less about the performance of reindex; also it already rescans all the relevant messages, so I guess the performance impact would not be that bad. Sometimes it's worth giving up performance for more intuitive behaviour, but most people seem to manage with the current behaviour. d