5 Jan
2010
5 Jan
'10
9:32 a.m.
On 5.1.2010, at 7.44, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
As we can see from the 1% I/O wait on CPU0 and 0% on CPU1, it's seems pretty clear that the CPUs are being occupied by the dovecot search code, not by disk I/O.
v1.1+ has somewhat faster search code. At least it's using boyer-moore with some of my own uglyness to make it support incremental searches. Wonder if there's a nicer and faster way to do that than what I implemented.