| 1 |
On Saturday, 7 April 2018 14:35:27 BST Floyd Anderson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Mick, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 11:21:23 +0100 |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >So far I had been using gdbm, but I now see that emerge also added lmdb. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Same here, so I gave lmdb a try as hcache backend. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> >Which one is best to use? What have you chosen? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I assume you mean for speed? I don’t know and it may become very |
| 14 |
> academic to answer this. But you can find some none Mutt-specific |
| 15 |
> benchmark results on NeoMutt’s website [1]. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Note, the mentioned benchmark page say: |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> “[…] you’ll need a reasonable large number of |
| 20 |
> messages – >50k – to see anything interesting” |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Using lmdb as backend, I do not realise any differences over gdbm within |
| 23 |
> Mutt respectively NeoMutt and I doubt one really can (without measuring |
| 24 |
> it exactly – which I haven’t done yet). |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> References: |
| 28 |
> [1] <https://www.neomutt.org/contrib/hcache-bench> |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thanks Floyd, good information. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I also switched to lmdb now and updated my use flags accordingly for mutt. I |
| 33 |
see neomutt gaining traction, but I am still running mutt here. Is there a |
| 34 |
benefit from switching? |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Regards, |
| 38 |
Mick |
Archives