Re: [maildb-devel] Re: messages in/out of database

[Jeff S. <jsq...@os...>]

On Thu, 22 May 2003 li...@av... wrote:

> Sure, we can cram it somewhere.  :-)  I could just make a table called
> 'msg_orig' that consists of the msg_id and a largetext field to hold the
> whole thing.  Ok?

Sounds good to me.

> > Heck, let's err on the side of lots of options.  The idea here is that we
> > can search and sort in a million different ways:
> >
> > - To
> > [snipped]
>
> Errr...that's a lot.  Sure you don't want to keep just the "well-known"
> ones in msg_ids and shove the rest off into msg_hdrs?  Or do you want to
> get rid of msg_hdrs and put everything into msg_ids?  Actually I guess
> we'd need a msg_hdrs in any case to catch anything that we don't account
> for in msg_ids.  Just wondering how far you want to go here.

True.

Ok, let's just do a few for now, and if performance really sucks, we can
add more later.  How about:

- To
- CC
- BCC (for outgoing messages)
- Subject
- Date
- From
- In-Reply-To
- Sender

> > Here's an issue, though: what happens if the value of any of these header
> > lines is longer than the length of the "text" field?
>
> Well, text is 64k, mediumtext is 16m, and largetext is 4g.  (I misspoke
> earlier when I said text was 16m.)  So...I'd make them mediumtext, I
> suspect, since I think 64k may be too small, but 16m has got to be
> overkill.  I mean, I can't even get 1m message bodies sent half the
> time, much less anything with a header that big.

I think text (64k) is fine for a single line in a header.  If you've got a
header line that's longer than 64k, you've got other issues!  ;-)

-- 
{+} Jeff Squyres
{+} jsq...@os...
{+} Research Associate, Open Systems Lab, Indiana University
{+} http://www.osl.iu.edu/