hcache on tmpfs?

[Cameron Simpson]

On 31Mar2023 10:11, void <void at f-m.fm> wrote:
>Hello Cameron, I've replied in-line

This is the way.

>>I use an hcache. On persistent storage, which is an SSD for me. My
>>"python" folder has 157000 messages in it and opening mutt on it and
>>then closing it just took about 20 seconds including eyeballing the top
>>line to read the message count. This mutt was built with tokyocabinet,
>>which I expect is used for the hache (nothing else would have any use
>>for it).
>
>I'd recomment lmdb in your context if you need persistent storage. 
>Have been v impressed with lmdb.

I've actually been using it in another project pretty happily. But I 
haven't done any comparitive benchmarks.

>I also have thousands of emails spread across different folders. My 
>context is using a rpi4b (8GB) with
>usb3-connected hard drive.

Ah, so the drive itself is probably pretty slow? Rust or SSD?

>Right now, with $tmpdir pointing to a tmpfs
>mount, and with hcache still pointing to the HD, (and with a zfs
>filesystem), mutt is veru useable and quick even on this limited
>hardware.

Impressed. I'll try to make some time to built a mutt using lmdb.

I keep an hcache per mail folder, I think because I once read somewhere 
that only one mutt gets to use the hcache and I sometimes have a few 
mutts around, sometimes on the same folder but usually different 
folders.

Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <cs at cskk.id.au>