From: Nanako Shiraishi Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:24:12 GMT Subject: Re: git performance Message-ID: <20081024072412.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> In-Reply-To: Quoting Daniel Barkalow : > 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", Are you describing the "assume unchanged bit"? -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/