similar to: Feature request - search and tag protocol - notmuch-alike approach

"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill at shutemov.name> writes: > Hello, > > I found that on particular queries notmuch return different results if run > the query few times. Re-initialing the query or db doesn't help. > > I've attached test case along with corpus of messages. > > Unpack the archive and run `make' there. It will initialize the notmuch

On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 10:32:56PM -0400, David Bremner wrote: > "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill at shutemov.name> writes: > > I found that on particular queries notmuch return different results if run > > the query few times. Re-initialing the query or db doesn't help. > > Thanks for the report. I don't yet understand where the bug is, but I > think

Hi notmuch developers, I also had this database corruption, I waited for the fix to land in notmuch 0.26.2, build it, moved the xapian directory away, did a notmuch new and restored the tags from a dump. But the problem remains: ~$ xapian-check ~/Mail/.notmuch/xapian docdata: blocksize=8K items=10841 firstunused=75 revision=82 levels=1 root=2 B-tree checked okay docdata table structure checked

Hi, I'm having some trouble writing an FTS plugin that uses notmuch (http://notmuchmail.org/) as the backend. As a proof of concept, I'm adding a hardcoded UID to the search results in the plugin's lookup handler: seq_range_array_add(&result->definite_uids, 1, 42); but this UID is never returned by IMAP SEARCH commands. I know the plugin is being used, since I'm also

Javier Garcia <javiertury at gmail.com> writes: > I've applied the path to notmuch 0.26.1 without success. > > $ rm -rf ~/.mail/.notmuch > $ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/hidden-path/notmuch-0.26.1/lib/:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH > ./notmuch new >    Found 20065 total files (that's not much mail). >    Processed 20065 total files in 58s (341 files/sec.). >    Added 19605 new

Unfortunately I can't share my emails without the approval of other parties. The minimum subsets that trigger the error are in the range of 1000-5000 mails, so asking each and everyone of them is out of my reach. I tried to replicate the problem using just spam folders without success. The following is a solid workaround I've stumbled upon. Afew no longer complains and database corruption

io <io at ooeeeoo.com> writes: > what xapian 'indexing system' did was to index the entire sentence > 'xxx_yyy' and you will not be able to find any sentence which contain > the word 'yyy'? I'm curious that you refer to xxx_yyy as a sentence. In the contexts I am familiar with, the point of _ is to join things together into one word (or one

I hadn't noticed any interactive slowdown, but when I got around to running the notmuch performance suite, there seems to be some noticable slowdown with the glass backend (default in Xapian 1.3.5) compared to chert (using xapian 1.2.22) These tests are on an older i7 with 12G of RAM and an SSD. I'm reasonable confident they are CPU bound. One curious thing is the increase in system time

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:32:40PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 07:09:02PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 07:10:25AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > > > Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > >> What is the error message? > > > > > > > > /usr/include/asm-generic/fcntl.h:117: error: redefinition

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:26:17AM -0700, James Jones wrote: > Accept the DRM_FORMAT_MOD_NVIDIA_16BX2_BLOCK() > family of modifiers to handle broken userspace > Xorg modesetting and Mesa drivers. Existing Mesa > drivers are still aware of only these older > format modifiers which do not differentiate > between different variations of the block linear > layout. When the format

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 01:40:13PM +1000, Ben Skeggs wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 at 12:48, Dave Airlie <airlied at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 04:51, James Jones <jajones at nvidia.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 7/23/20 9:06 PM, Ben Skeggs wrote: > > > > On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 at 13:34, James Jones <jajones at

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 03:00:47PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote: > Running notmuch from git on Debian testing[1] with the mail and database > sitting on a ZFS filesystem, adding mail to a new database: > > > agrajag-testing ~/s/notmuch % ./notmuch new > > Found 605510 total files (that's not much mail). > > add_file: A Xapian exception occurred36m 37s remaining).

David Bremner <david at tethera.net> writes: >> Here's why it would freeze: >> >> I have a post-new hook that runs a Python script. Depending on >> whether the new email it is processing matches a rule I have, >> it will fire off an email to the sender using the SMTP library >> in Python. >> >> I had recently upgraded my MTA

On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 11:36:36AM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de at gmail.com> writes: > > > I also suffer from bad performance of notmuch new. I used notmuch > > some years ago and notmuch new always felt instantanious. Had to stop > > using it because internet was too slow to sync my mails :/ Now (with > > better internet and a

On Thu Apr 23 00:21:30 2020, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: > First question: what version of Xapian are you using? On my laptop it's 1.4.15 (arch linux) and the desktop runs 1.4.14 (Gentoo linux) > And second thing to check, are you committing each message separately? No, I sync with mbsync which dosnloads a bunch of mails, then I run notmuch new which indexes all in

Hi! Suppose you have a huge notmuch/Xapian database, built on a 32-bit system (well, actually on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but using a years old 32-bit notmuch binary; notmuch 0.9, Xapian 1.2.21 -- don't laugh), and suppose you're finally going to update that years old notmuch installation (release by release, forward-porting a bunch of patches). Naturally, I'd now do a native 64-bit

On Friday, 2017-12-29 at 22:23:01 UTC, Olly Betts wrote: >> After the failure the database appears to be okay: >> >> > agrajag-testing ~/s/notmuch % xapian-check ~/Maildir/.notmuch/xapian >> > ... >> > position table structure checked OK > > This seems to be for an almost empty database (2 items in the postlist > table and nothing anywhere else)

On Tue, Apr 07, 2020 at 05:21:47PM -0300, David Bremner wrote: > Matt <mattator at gmail.com> writes: [...] > > termlist: > > blocksize=8K items=186136 firstunused=62058 revision=421 levels=2 root=12260 > > B-tree checked okay > > termlist table structure checked OK > > > > postlist: > > blocksize=8K items=2598971 firstunused=61412 revision=421

Franz Fellner <alpine.art.de at gmail.com> writes: > > On Thu Apr 23 00:21:30 2020, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote: >> Then I'd try compacting the database (I think there's a "notmuch >> compact" subcommand to do this). > And there we go. Cured the issues. Dropped the very first indexing > from several minutes to 1.5 seconds on the

I discovered, while trying to set up Tcl bindings for Notmuch (https://notmuchmail.org/), which uses Xapian, that flintlock was not being locked (I had lost updates). I then found that opening a Xapian database for writing directly via the Xapian Tcl bindings also silently fails to lock flintlock. I have taken a copy of flint_lock.cc to play with, and I find that it locks the file when called