Bug 172580 - kmail is very slow when it has many unread messages (around 6000)
Summary: kmail is very slow when it has many unread messages (around 6000)
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 163469
Alias: None
Product: kmail
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: 1.10.1
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: kdepim bugs
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-10-11 10:03 UTC by Arne Babenhauserheide
Modified: 2008-10-11 10:18 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Arne Babenhauserheide 2008-10-11 10:03:35 UTC
Version:           1.10.1 (using 4.1.1 (KDE 4.1.1), Gentoo)
Compiler:          x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-gcc
OS:                Linux (x86_64) release 2.6.25-gentoo-r7

kmail responds very slowly to user input - I assume it is caused by many unread mails and my check seems to verify that. 

Background: 

I am used to not only reading mails, but to also collect them from my favorite mailinglists so I can read up / search in it later on. 

Also I tend to leaving spam as unread and doublechecking every unread mesage about once a month before markin it as spam (which I didn't find time for during the last two months). 

That way my unread mail count grew to something above 6000, and kmail grew slow, bordering to almost unresponsive (>10s wait time, until I could see a GUI reaction). 

To test my hypothesis, that the many unread mails are causing that, I marked about 4500 of them as read (1500 unread remain), and kmail became much more responsive (the reaction times for scrolling are below 1/3rd of a second again). 

What happens there in the background which creates that massive amount of load? 

Aside from that, the KDE 4.1 kmail feels much leaner that the 3.5 version (especially because it doesn't block when retrieving mails, I think). Many thanks for your great work! 

Besides: The biggest part of the load seems to have been "waiting" (checked via top).
Comment 1 Tommi Tervo 2008-10-11 10:18:50 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 163469 ***