644333 - batch updating of counts to speed up operations on large numbers of messages

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 538378

(Thunderbird :: Folder and Message Lists, defect)

Description

[David :Bienvenu]

There are still places where we update counts in the folder pane in a tight loop. I've got a patch for one of these (involving saved searches, iirc).

Comment 1

[David :Bienvenu]

Attachment: fix updating of virtual folder counts

this adds begin/end batching events to dbchangelisteners, and makes deleting imap messages use the batching events so the account manager knows to update counts once instead of on every deleted message in the loop.

Comment 2

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 521498 [details] [diff] [review]
fix updating of virtual folder counts

Who sets m_updatePending?

Comment 3

[David :Bienvenu]

(In reply to comment #2)
> Comment on attachment 521498 [details] [diff] [review]
> fix updating of virtual folder counts
> 
> Who sets m_updatePending?

good question - this is a diff that's been hanging out in my tree for quite a while - I'll try to reconstruct it...

Comment 4

[David :Bienvenu]

Comment on attachment 521498 [details] [diff] [review]
fix updating of virtual folder counts

the change in the vffolderchanger listener to use events posted to the ui thread to effectively implement batching makes the account manager changes moot. I'll see what's left that might be useful.

Comment 5

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

xref Bug 636306 - Improve virtual folder / saved search performance - doesn't scale for large numbers of virtual folder

Comment 6

[David :Bienvenu]

Attachment: use existing batching mechanism

Comment 7

[[e-mail]]

Comment on attachment 521623 [details] [diff] [review]
use existing batching mechanism

I don't really understand the third parameter to EnableNotifications...

Comment 8

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

neil, bienvenu, patch has r+ but I'm lost as to the potential for getting this checked in

what level of impact does this have for reducing memory usage?

Comment 9

[David :Bienvenu]

no memory usage improvements. I don't remember if I landed this, but if not, I suspect the same fix is also in the patch for bug 538378.

Comment 10

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to David :Bienvenu from comment #9)
> no memory usage improvements. I don't remember if I landed this, but if not,
> I suspect the same fix is also in the patch for bug 538378.

not landed afaik, so trusting  bienvenu