also sprach Ben Gamari <[email protected]> [2010.02.18.0834 +1300]: > Excerpts from Mark Anderson's message of Wed Feb 17 14:23:48 -0500 > 2010: > > But if we have notmuch as a cache of the tags, then don't we > > already know the tree objects that need updating? Yes, we would > > probably need some consistency checks for when things don't work > > as planned, but in the common case we ought to always know. > > > Cached or not, rewriting would still be an incredibly (e.g. > prohibitively or close to it) expensive operation for a large > mailstore.
Why? Well, would involve creating n objects and unlinking n objects for n tags, but it would be constant in the number of messages, no? > > Perhaps I'm misunderstanding these tree objects, and you're > > suggesting that we don't even tell notmuch about them. > > > I think it would be unwise to teach notmuch anything about the > underlying store. That would be leaking way too many > implementation details into I agree. Also, it would introduce redundancy. -- martin | http://madduck.net/ | http://two.sentenc.es/ "twenty-four hour room-service must be one of the premiere achievements of modern civilization." -- special agent dale cooper spamtraps: [email protected]
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
_______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
