Re: [Lurker-users] Lurker 1.0 Survey

[Jamin W. C. <jco...@as...>]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 05:23:37AM -0700, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:15:13PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:25:15PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> > > 7. Back-issue import w/o reimport or date-sorted search?
> > 
> > Not entirely sure what you're referring to here.
> 
> Right now, when you want to import messages that are older than the most
> recently imported message, you have to dump the database and start over.
> 
> This is because messages are assigned IDs in chronological order, and I
> return the results in sorted order based on these IDs. This is why you
> always see most recent results first in a search.
> 
> If I have to choose between one or the other, which is more important:
> 	ability to import messages from the past w/o reimport
> 	searches returning recent messages first

Gotcha.  In that case, I would have to say date ordered searches.
However, are you talking about the date sent or the date received?
Remember some people mis-set their clocks and send messages that appear
to be from the future or past.

> > > 9. How much RAM is too much for lurker to use?
> > 
> > 32-64 (not entirely sure what it uses now)
> 
> This is Mb? (right now it uses nearly exactly 8Mb - always)

Yep.  With RAM prices the way they are, I would sacrifice some for
speed.  Might be nice to be able to set an upper-limit in a config file.
 
> The main things I intend to improve right now (subject to being out-voted):
> 	a much faster (!!!), 32-bit ok, and transactional db
> 	using a faster/less-hassles mime parser (mime++)

Sounds good to me.

-- 
Jamin W. Collins