[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-pim
Subject:    Re: [Kde-pim] Nepomukfeeder updates almost ready
From:       Allen Winter <winter () kde ! org>
Date:       2012-12-27 21:06:01
Message-ID: 2076780.V3G6syO0Sk () dizzy
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wednesday 26 December 2012 04:44:53 PM Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> I made another bunch of fixes, turned the finding of skipped items into a \
>  recurring task, and turn the change-recorder off now if the feeder is \
> disabled  entirely. In my testing so far this system behaves much better \
> than what we  used to have.
> 
> I plan on committing this to 4.10 if noone objects within the next days. \
> (I'll  write a mail to release-team first).
> 
> The code is here:
> http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=clones%2Fkdepim-
> runtime%2Fcmollekopf%2FpimRuntimeClone.git&a=shortlog&h=c2ca91566953c57af119634f65b5bd73bac7e7fa
>  
> Cheers,
> Christian
> 
> 
> On Sunday 23 December 2012 17.54:18 Christian Mollekopf wrote:
> > Heya,
> > 
> > To cut right to the chase; I revamped the feeders a bit, think it's \
> > much better than what we had before, and would like to get it into \
> > 4.10. So feel free to skip if you don't care.
> > 
> > I moved to a recurring, query based approach for the initial-indexing. \
> > That means, instead of doing a single initial-indexing when the feeder \
> > is executed the first time, and relying purely on updates from the
> > change-recorder afterwards, the initial-indexing is now more a \
> > maintenance task (which is currently running on every start), and \
> > queries for all not yet indexed items.
> > 
> > That is necessary, as the initial assumption that we can index items \
> > faster than notifications come in didn't hold true, which resulted in \
> > the feeder regularly being overloaded with stuff to index.
> > 
> > The initial query approach resulted in n queries for n items, which is \
> > way too slow to be feasible for all items (it is taking ages, \
> > literally). The only alternative approach I found is; we run two \
> > queries, one in akonadi and one in nepomuk, each querying for *all* \
> > available items. Comparing the two lists, results in the list of items \
> > which have not been indexed yet. Of course, that misses any changes on \
> > items which have been indexed before, but have been modified since \
> > then, so it's not ideal either. These queries are fairly efficient as \
> > they result in a single sql query per db (as opposed to n),  although \
> > with a huge result set. I could query my db of ~100'000 items in ~20s \
> > (i7 processor). 
> > Since I figured changes on emails, which are mostly just flags, are
> > negligible, I switched the email initial-indexing to that new approach.
> > 
> > Non-email items continue to be indexed as usual, meaning there is one \
> > query per item, which allows us to detect modifications as well. That \
> > is slow as usual, but since we usually have a lot more email items than \
> > non-email items, it works well enough.
> > 
> > Another important advantage is that we can thus now also skip large \
> > batches of new/changed items, knowing they will be picked up by the
> > initial-indexing eventually. That also allows us to turn off the
> > change-recorder when the feeder is turned off (which is another problem \
> > if we rely on the change- recorder too much).
> > 
> > One remaining problem is that we get loads of notifications of \
> > changed/added items, which I think are mostly due to sync-on-demand \
> > updates, updating the cache (and not actual new emails or whatnot). I \
> > also often get flag change notifications on my offline imap accounts, \
> > which I don't really know why yet. That of course would lead to loads \
> > of items being indexed over and over again, but that can be mitigated \
> > somewhat since we now can skip larger batches of items.
> > 
> > Besides I made some performance improvements, such as the cache I \
> > mentioned previously (200% performance boost), or that new items are \
> > now indexed without any queries, which gives another boost of 10%-20% \
> > or so. 
> > Overall, I think we should get this into 4.10 as fast as possible. The \
> > patch is somewhat large (and way to late in the process), but IMO the \
> > previous feeders are broken enough to justify this. So what do you \
> > think? Should I commit this to 4.10 in a couple of commits, or only \
> > master and then backport it for 4.10.1?
> > 

Are there any objections to getting this work committed for 4.10?
It's awfully late in the release cycle to be pushing for this, but I will
do so if I get warm-fuzzies from a couple more folks that we need it.

Anyone want to chime in here?
Please do so ASAP.

_______________________________________________
KDE PIM mailing list kde-pim@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-pim
KDE PIM home page at http://pim.kde.org/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]