On Monday 16 April 2001 11:42, Michael Häckel wrote:
> On Monday, 16. April 2001 10:46, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > This patch should be better than the 1st one. As Michael suggested, the
> > score is put in the QListViewItems. There is no check for whether there
> > are rules for the group or not yet, but I tried it on a fairly large
> > folder (several thousands of msg) and didn't notice any serious slowdown.
>
> A lot of hard working people these days :-)
>
> The patch is much better, than the last one, so far right.
>
> However I still consider a slowdown of 100% serious especially since that
> is much more than the speed gained by Sams patch. It is much better than
> 700% slowdown of course. It that would be only in folders with scoring that
> would be acceptable.

I don't want to see any slow down at all. Scores should only be computed for 
visible items using the virtual methods text and pixmap. That ways scoring 
should be free when not sorting by score. Also this way you prevent memory 
bloat too. See Sam's patch for how that should work.

People already complain that KMail takes too much memory, and I am working 
really hard to sped it up too.

When sorting by score (if that's possible) is sounds like things will be 
pretty slow.

BTW Guillaume I'm sorry about editing kmheaders  under you and no doubt 
causing conflicts that have to be merged.

BFN,
Don.
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail