Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- From: Cydrome Leader <presence@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 21:12:03 +0000 (UTC)
Timo Sirainen <tss@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:46:27 +0000, NM Public wrote:
For IMAP, "SQL just sucks"
<http://deflexion.com/2006/06/for-imap-sql-just-sucks>
I see it has a comment about Zimbra storing metadata to SQL and message
bodies to files. My original comments about "why SQL sucks for IMAP" was
actually more about metadata than bodies.
Implementing a well performing IMAP server is mostly about minimizing
disk I/O usage as much as possible. Designing index files specifically
for IMAP can get a lot better performance than using a generic SQL
server. For example some data may be accessed much faster if the data is
stored in column-oriented way rather than row-oriented. Or the server may
even store the data in both ways to optimize for two different clients or
commands (e.g. SORT (RECEIVED) vs. FETCH 1:* (INTERNALDATE ENVELOPE
BODY)).
while obviously not IMAP based, the original hotmail was able to scale to
a large size because they split all message headers and metadata from the
bodies of the messages.
Until you actually checked a message, the message body wasn't even
touched.
.
- References:
- Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- From: Charles
- Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- From: NM Public
- Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- From: Timo Sirainen
- Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- Prev by Date: Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- Next by Date: Re: using Exchange as IMAP client
- Previous by thread: Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- Next by thread: Re: Which one is faster: IMAP server or MySQL server?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|