[Dovecot] question about fts_squat

[Wojciech Puchar]

>> always work very well.
>>
>> what's wrong?
>
> Fixed: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/4ce1f9649592

Thanks. so - my post actually  got right. sorry for repost!
just got this delayed!

>
> Anyway, fts-lucene backend works better than fts-squat.
Better in what respect?

less than a second (when disk I/O was needed) fulltext search over 10000 
mails doesn't look bad :)