Re: [SM-DEVEL] Analysis of which functions are inefficient

[Magnus S. <st...@hk...>]

Michael Douma wrote:
> 
> I agree -- a dramatic amount of time could be saved by caching headers
> (and folders).
> 
> My PC IMAP clients keep a local cache, and hits the IMAP server to check
> if anything has changed. Upon noting changes, only the new items'
> headers are transferred. Often SM and the IMAP server are on the same
> machine, but I think it would be good to design as though they were
> communicating with a 56k modem.

If there is such a ting as "report a summary of the folder" type thing
like in POP3, a cache could quite easily be implemented. [I guess]
(could of course be turned off in the config)

Even if the IMAP server is on the same machine load would probably
decrease dramatically if something like that would be used, since
the IMAP server would not have to parse and send all that info,
and SM would not have to re-parse timestamps, etc, etc
every hit. It could even write down the cache in sorted order.

The cache could be written down i some native PHP data format
(like perl's Data::Dumper) so it would not have to be parsed
but just read straight into a variable.

The cache files could be removed at login/logout.


I did something like this for a webmail in perl once and
I had folders with 10.000 messages with very fast browsing.


/magnus


> 
> On Monday, February 25, 2002, at 03:16 AM, Magnus Stenman wrote:
> 
> > I wonder, how much of the time is spent getting headers from the IMAP
> > server, and how much could be saved by caching (in PHP session or on
> >  disk) those headers?