Return-Path: guido@python.org
Delivery-Date: Sat Sep  7 07:06:31 2002
From: guido@python.org (Guido van Rossum)
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:06:31 -0400
Subject: [Spambayes] Ditching WordInfo
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Sep 2002 22:48:17 PDT."
             <w537khybba6.fsf@woozle.org> 
References: <LNBBLJKPBEHFEDALKOLCOEKKBCAB.tim.one@comcast.net>
	<w53n0qubcpj.fsf@woozle.org>
	<200209070533.g875XN813509@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net>  
	<w537khybba6.fsf@woozle.org> 
Message-ID: <200209070606.g8766Vf13736@pcp02138704pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net>

> > Maybe.  I batch messages using fetchmail (don't ask why), and adding
> > .4 seconds per message for a batch of 50 (not untypical) feels like a
> > real wait to me...
> 
> Yeesh.  Sounds like what you need is something to kick up once and score
> an entire mailbox.
> 
> Wait a second...  So *that's* why you wanted -u.
> 
> If you can spare the memory, you might get better performance in this
> case using the pickle store, since it only has to go to disk once (but
> boy, does it ever go to disk!)  I can't think of anything obvious to
> speed things up once it's all loaded into memory, though.  That's
> profiler territory, and profiling is exactly the kind of optimization
> I just said I wasn't going to do :)

We could have a server mode (someone described this as an SA option).

--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
