Re: git performance

> On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>
>> Out of curiosity, what are they talking about, when they say "git is 
>> fast?"  Just the fact that it's all local disk, or is there more to it 
>> than that?  I could see - git would probably outperform perforce for 
>> versioning of large files (let's say iso files) to benefit from 
>> sustained local disk IO, while perforce would probably outperform 
>> anything I can think of, operating on thousands of tiny files, because 
>> it will never walk the tree. 
>
> It shouldn't be too hard to make git work like perforce with respect to 
> walking the tree. git keeps an index of the stat() info it saw when it 
> last looked at files, and only looks at the contents of files whose stat() 
> info has changed. In order to have it work like perforce, it would just 
> need to have a flag in the stat() info index for "don't even bother",