[Dovecot] FTS what to use ?
Hi
I'm currently using dovecot 2.0 with squat fts which does a nice job. However I'm thinking about upgrading to dovecot 2.1 and the wiki isn't clear about which fts can or should be used with it.
Is squat support dead ? As the wiki mentions that the config syntax is obsolete, I'm not sure if squat is obsolete also ? If not, what is the new syntax ?
But in the case squat is dead.. what is the recommended alternative nowadays ? I don't really need substring search, but it is a nice thing to have.
PS : I will be using dovecot 2.1 with maildir
thanks
erik
On Fri, 2013-01-11 at 10:01 +0100, Erik Colson wrote:
Hi
I'm currently using dovecot 2.0 with squat fts which does a nice job. However I'm thinking about upgrading to dovecot 2.1 and the wiki isn't clear about which fts can or should be used with it.
Is squat support dead ? As the wiki mentions that the config syntax is obsolete, I'm not sure if squat is obsolete also ? If not, what is the new syntax ?
But in the case squat is dead.. what is the recommended alternative nowadays ? I don't really need substring search, but it is a nice thing to have.
I added now to http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Plugins/FTS/Squat :
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use fts-lucene instead.
On 01/15/2013 01:51 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use fts-lucene instead.
I'm running 2.1 and have just set up fts_solr. Should I scrap that and move to Lucene?
-Dave-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
On 15.1.2013, at 21.05, Dave McGuire mcguire@neurotica.com wrote:
On 01/15/2013 01:51 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use fts-lucene instead.
I'm running 2.1 and have just set up fts_solr. Should I scrap that and move to Lucene?
No, Solr is even better.
On 01/16/2013 12:17 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
NOTE: The squat code is quite slow for large mailboxes. There are also a few bugs that are unlikely to be fixed. In v2.1+ it's recommended to use fts-lucene instead.
I'm running 2.1 and have just set up fts_solr. Should I scrap that and move to Lucene?
No, Solr is even better.
Excellent, that's what I thought. Thank you.
-Dave-- Dave McGuire, AK4HZ New Kensington, PA
participants (3)
-
Dave McGuire
-
Erik Colson
-
Timo Sirainen