[Dovecot] Which FTS to use!
Hello, i am currently using squat dovecot, but some users that have lots os emails ( 1GB ) are complaining about speed. Iam using dovecot 2.0.13 on debian 6
my squat conf is plugin { fts = squat fts_squat = partial=4 full=5 }
I am thinking in maybe start to use Solr, so any one can help me with an decision?
I am probably gonna update dovecot to 2.1 next year. and them maybe change the FTS plugin.
This year i will get 10k disk only to store the dovecot index, rigth now they are saved on the same storage that the mails are and also change the "full" parameter to something like 10 or 15 I know i will use more disk space for it, but it will make a lot of differences right? it will match the message without the need of opening it for any search smaller than 10 character i guess.
But this will be enough? or Solr or Lucene still better?
Anyway, i am not current updating the indexes automatic, but i am planing on it, just not sure what is better, the command doveadm index or doveadm search... with one is better to do the task?
Thanks!
[]'sf.rique
On 25.11.2011, at 17.29, Henrique Santos Fernandes wrote:
Hello, i am currently using squat dovecot, but some users that have lots os emails ( 1GB ) are complaining about speed. Iam using dovecot 2.0.13 on debian 6
my squat conf is plugin { fts = squat fts_squat = partial=4 full=5 }
I am thinking in maybe start to use Solr, so any one can help me with an decision?
With v2.0 Solr is the only other choice.
I am probably gonna update dovecot to 2.1 next year. and them maybe change the FTS plugin.
With v2.1 Lucene is another possibility, and it's somewhat easier to install than Solr. Also v2.1's Solr backend is improved, so I wouldn't really recommend spending a lot of time and disk I/O on v2.0's Solr since you'll need to rebuild the index anyway in v2.1 (or keep using "solr_old" backend with some missing featues).
This year i will get 10k disk only to store the dovecot index, rigth now they are saved on the same storage that the mails are and also change the "full" parameter to something like 10 or 15 I know i will use more disk space for it, but it will make a lot of differences right? it will match the message without the need of opening it for any search smaller than 10 character i guess.
But this will be enough? or Solr or Lucene still better?
The main problem with Squat is its index updating performance, which sucks.
Anyway, i am not current updating the indexes automatic, but i am planing on it, just not sure what is better, the command doveadm index or doveadm search... with one is better to do the task?
doveadm index
So i guess i will just stay with squat until i upgrade to 2.1 and then move to solr..
And make the cron update daily for active users!
Thanks a lot! []'sf.rique
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Timo Sirainen <tss@iki.fi> wrote:
On 25.11.2011, at 17.29, Henrique Santos Fernandes wrote:
Hello, i am currently using squat dovecot, but some users that have lots os emails ( 1GB ) are complaining about speed. Iam using dovecot 2.0.13 on debian 6
my squat conf is plugin { fts = squat fts_squat = partial=4 full=5 }
I am thinking in maybe start to use Solr, so any one can help me with an decision?
With v2.0 Solr is the only other choice.
I am probably gonna update dovecot to 2.1 next year. and them maybe change the FTS plugin.
With v2.1 Lucene is another possibility, and it's somewhat easier to install than Solr. Also v2.1's Solr backend is improved, so I wouldn't really recommend spending a lot of time and disk I/O on v2.0's Solr since you'll need to rebuild the index anyway in v2.1 (or keep using "solr_old" backend with some missing featues).
This year i will get 10k disk only to store the dovecot index, rigth now they are saved on the same storage that the mails are and also change the "full" parameter to something like 10 or 15 I know i will use more disk space for it, but it will make a lot of differences right? it will match the message without the need of opening it for any search smaller than 10 character i guess.
But this will be enough? or Solr or Lucene still better?
The main problem with Squat is its index updating performance, which sucks.
Anyway, i am not current updating the indexes automatic, but i am planing on it, just not sure what is better, the command doveadm index or doveadm search... with one is better to do the task?
doveadm index
participants (2)
-
Henrique Santos Fernandes
-
Timo Sirainen