Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] p0005-status: time status on very large repo

> 
> 
> On 4/6/2017 6:14 PM, Thomas Gummerer wrote:
> >On 04/06, git@jeffhostetler.com wrote:
> >>From: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
> >>---
> >> t/perf/p0005-status.sh | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+)
> >> create mode 100755 t/perf/p0005-status.sh
> >>
> >>diff --git a/t/perf/p0005-status.sh b/t/perf/p0005-status.sh
> >>new file mode 100755
> >>index 0000000..704cebc
> >>--- /dev/null
> >>+++ b/t/perf/p0005-status.sh
> >>@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
> >>+#!/bin/sh
> >>+
> >>+test_description="Tests performance of read-tree"
> >>+
> >>+. ./perf-lib.sh
> >>+
> >>+test_perf_default_repo
> >>+test_checkout_worktree
> >>+
> >>+## usage: dir depth width files
> >>+make_paths () {
> >>+	for f in $(seq $4)
> >>+	do
> >>+		echo $1/file$f
> >>+	done;
> >>+	if test $2 -gt 0;
> >>+	then
> >>+		for w in $(seq $3)
> >>+		do
> >>+			make_paths $1/dir$w $(($2 - 1)) $3 $4
> >>+		done
> >>+	fi
> >>+	return 0
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+fill_index () {
> >>+	make_paths $1 $2 $3 $4 |
> >>+	sed "s/^/100644 $EMPTY_BLOB	/" |
> >>+	git update-index --index-info
> >>+	return 0
> >>+}
> >>+
> >>+br_work1=xxx_work1_xxx
> >>+dir_new=xxx_dir_xxx
> >>+
> >>+## (5, 10, 9) will create 999,999 files.
> >>+## (4, 10, 9) will create  99,999 files.
> >>+depth=5
> >>+width=10
> >>+files=9
> >>+
> >>+## Inflate the index with thousands of empty files and commit it.
> >>+## Use reset to actually populate the worktree.
> >>+test_expect_success 'inflate the index' '
> >>+	git reset --hard &&
> >>+	git branch $br_work1 &&
> >>+	git checkout $br_work1 &&
> >>+	fill_index $dir_new $depth $width $files &&
> >>+	git commit -m $br_work1 &&
> >>+	git reset --hard
> >>+'
> >>+
> >>+## The number of files in the branch.
> >>+nr_work1=$(git ls-files | wc -l)
> >
> >The above seems to be repeated (or at least very similar to what you
> >have in your other series [1].  Especially in this perf test wouldn't
> >it be better just use test_perf_large_repo, and let whoever runs the
> >test decide what constitutes a large repository for them?
> >
> >The other advantage of that would be that it is more of a real-world
> >scenario, instead of a synthetic distribution of the files, which
> >would give us some better results I think.
> >
> >Is there anything I'm missing that would make using
> >test_perf_large_repo not a good option here?
> 
> Yes, it is copied from the other series.  I make the same change
> that Rene just suggested on it to use awk to create the list.
> 
> I did this because I need very large repos.  From what I can tell
> the common usage is to set test_perf_large_repo to linux.git, but
> that only has 58K files.  And it defaults to git.git which only
> has 3K files.

> So I created this test to generate artificial, but large and
> reproducible repos for evaluation.
> 
> I could change the default depth to 4 (giving a 100K tree), but
> I'm really interested in 1M+ repos.  For small-ish values of n
> the difference between O(n) and O(n log n) operations can hide
> in system and I/O noise; not so for very large n....

> >
> >[1]: http://public-inbox.org/git/20170406163442.36463-3-git@jeffhostetler.com/
> >
> >>+test_perf "read-tree status work1 ($nr_work1)" '
> >>+	git read-tree HEAD &&
> >>+	git status
> >>+'
> >>+
> >>+test_done
> >>--
> >>2.9.3
> >>