0.92.6's bogotune much slower?

[Valient Gough]

On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 01:27, David Relson wrote:

> Given the _much_ larger number of parameter combinations to check,
> bogotune _is_ slower.
> 
> If you want to skip the ESF tests, run bogotune with the "-E" flag.  I
> usually use "-vv" when I run it as that shows a reasonable level of
> intermediate results and lets me see that bogotune is chugging along.


Thanks for the description.  My bogotune run has just finished, so I can
report that it took 5 days worth of CPU time to run.  Doesn't this seem
excessive as the default?  Perhaps the flag should be to enable ESF
search instead of disable it.

I just started a run with ESF disabled, and I notice that instead of
using the ESF parameters that are in the configuration file, disabling
ESF instead forces spesf and nsesf to 1.0.

I've changed my local copy to use the existing ESF (at least for the
course scan):

static void init_coarse(double _rx)
{
    double current_spexp = log(sp_esf)/log(.75);
    double current_nsexp = log(ns_esf)/log(.75);

    rxval = seq_canonical(_rx, 0.05);
    rsval = seq_by_pow(0.0, -2.0, -1.0);
    mdval = seq_by_amt(MD_MIN_C, MD_MAX_C, MD_DLT_C);
    spexp = seq_by_amt(ESF_SEL(current_spexp,2.0),
                       ESF_SEL(current_spexp,20.0), 3.0);
    nsexp = seq_by_amt(ESF_SEL(current_nsexp,2.0),
                       ESF_SEL(current_nsexp,20.0), 3.0);
}

Wouldn't keeping the existing value make more sense then throwing it
away?  After all the option says "disable ESF ... tuning", it doesn't
say that it will set ESF to a new value.

regards,
Valient

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.bogofilter.org/pipermail/bogofilter/attachments/20040905/6d28c649/attachment.html>