Spamassassin cache in mysql - feature request

Julian Field MailScanner at
Tue Mar 17 22:42:10 GMT 2009

On 17/3/09 15:42, Jonas Akrouh Larsen wrote:
>> IMHO running the cache.db in tmpfs (on ram) should be faster than
>> mysql over tcp, however it depends on your configuration. just a
>> balance between pros/cons.
> I think you missed the point, i think we can all agree the sqllite db on
> tmpfs is faster, but if u can share the cache between ur nodes, you should
> have a higher cache hit ratio as far as I can figure.
> Whether or not this cache hit ratio increase is worth the penalty of
> querying a central sql server is the question I guess.
> Even if you got a replication setup, so you query the sql server running on
> the local host, it will still be slower than sqllite on tmpfs.
I would be enormously grateful if someone could do a quick and ugly hack 
into the DB connection code to try out MySQL on a shared setup, before I 
go to the effort of implementing something to do the job nicely.

I personally very much doubt that it will be worth doing. You will hit 
the maximum hit %-age of the cache pretty fast even with independent 
caches on multiple servers, and MySQL over a network is a heck of a 
performance hit.

But it does sound worth someone testing.


Julian Field MEng CITP CEng
Buy the MailScanner book at

MailScanner customisation, or any advanced system administration help?
Contact me at Jules at Jules.FM

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654
PGP public key:

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list