From: Jonathan Tan Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 23:37:07 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pack-objects: prefetch objects to be packed Message-ID: <20200721233707.1363438-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> In-Reply-To: > Junio C Hamano writes: > > >>> The optimization makes sense to me if certain > >>> conditions are met, like... > >>> > >>> - Most of the time there is no missing object due to promisor, even > >>> if has_promissor_to_remote() is true; > >> > >> I think that optimizing for this condition makes sense - most pushes (I > >> would think) are pushes of objects we create locally, and thus no > >> objects are missing. > > Another simple thing I missed. Why do we specifically refer to > "push" here? Is this codepath in pack-objects not used or less > often used by upload-pack (which is what serves "fetch")? > > I just wanted to make sure that we are not optimizing for "push", > trading efficiency for "fetch" off. Ah...that's true. For "fetch" I think it's less important because the multiple roundtrips of the pack negotiation means that the packfiles are usually more specific, but this optimization will help "fetch" too. I don't think we're optimizing at the expense of "fetch" - any improvements should benefit both similarly.