Re: [PATCHv5 00/14] git notes
- From
Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
- Date
- Sep 12, 2009, 18:11 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090912181150.GN1033@spearce.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <200909121750.00733.johan@herland.net>
Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> wrote:
> Shawn, do you have any additional defence for the date-based fanout?
No.
The only defense I have for it is "it sounds like a nice theory given access patterns", and the note about memory usage you made, but which I clipped to keep this email shorter. :-)
It was only a theory I tossed out there in a back-seat-driver sort of way. Your results show my hunch was correct, it may help. But they also say it may not help enough to justify the complexity, so I now agree with you that SHA-1 fan out may be good enough.
> Are > there untested reasonable scenarios that would show the benefits of date- > based fanout?
I don't think there are, your tests were pretty good at covering things.
> How does the plan for notes usage in your code-review thingy > compare to my test scenario?
I think your tests may still have been too low in volume, 115k notes isn't a lot. Based on the distributions I was looking at before, I could be seeing a growth of >100k notes/year. Ask me again in 5 years if 115k notes is a lot. :-)
But we all know that SHA-1 distributes data quite well, so the SHA-1 fan-out may just need to change from 2_38 to 2_2_2_34 (or something) to handle that larger volume.
-- Shawn.