10689 - Adding/Removing messages using nsIRDFObserver functions is really slow

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(SeaMonkey :: MailNews: Message Display, defect, P3)

Description

[scottputterman]

When we add or delete messages using the nsIRDFObserver functions OnAssert and
OnUnassert, performance is really bad and much worse than when just using
GetTargets.

To see this, delete a folder's .msf file, and then restart and click on that
folder.  It will take much longer to load this folder.

This will also affect the time to download new headers - especially in Imap and
News.

See bug 6873 for more useful info as well as various newsgroup postings in the
mail-news newsgroup.

Comment 1

[Chris Waterson]

It ain't wonderful now, but we're back in the game I think.

Comment 2

[scottputterman]

I just wanted to point something out.  If you're using Mailnews to test this
then you might be getting some erroneous data.  Currently 10905 is open and says
that when we parse a mailbox only the first 1MB gets read in.  My 1300 message
mailbox takes up 7MB.  So, probably only the first 200 messages are actually
being added and given to RDF.

Also, unless performance is where we want it to eventually be, should we leave
this open?  I think we need a bug to track this.  Or are you saying that this
makes the async case equivalent to the sync case and we only need to concentrate
on one thing?

Comment 3

[Chris Waterson]

Well, I was thinking we could just keep bug 6873 open, and then attach specific
problems to that.

Comment 4

[scottputterman]

Now that we're able to parse the complete mailbox again, I'm not seeing any
speed difference since this bug was marked fixed.  It still takes about 3
minutes for me to load 1000 messages.

Comment 5

[Chris Waterson]

Then its been broken again. Reopening bug, setting milestone M10.

Comment 6

[leger]

Clearing Fixed resolution due to reopen.  lchiang...think we need and M9 Release
Note?

Comment 7

[lchiang]

There is nothing to release note.

Comment 8

[Phil Peterson]

*** Bug 9316 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9

[Phil Peterson]

*** Bug 9209 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 10

[Chris Waterson]

Fixed. FWIW, I don't think the case you present here ever worked.

Comment 11

[Chris Waterson]

Doh. Updated wrong bug.

Comment 12

[Phil Peterson]

Oh, man, don't tease me like that!

Comment 13

[sol]

Scott Putterman has a workaround for one of the manifestations of this bug -
don't tell RDF about incoming headers until all are received.

Comment 14

[Chris Waterson]

bulldozer to M12

Comment 15

[Chris Waterson]

scottip: this seems to be to a reasonable level of performance (for some
definition of reasonable). i'm going to mark as "fixed" for now: it's certainly
dogfoodable, probably even beta-able.

Comment 16

[scottputterman]

agreed.  For loading new messages we're in pretty good shape.  Plus, David B,
has a bug open for marking messages read which can replace this bug :)

Comment 17

[Suresh]

Marking this as Verified. We are in much better shape in folder loading 
performance.