Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] builtin/grep.c: integrate with sparse index

From: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>
Date: Aug 30, 2022, 13:45 UTC
Message-ID: <38741e59-3da8-e707-d8d9-da45eb2ef08a@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220829232843.183711-3-shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com>

On 8/29/2022 7:28 PM, Shaoxuan Yuan wrote:

> Turn on sparse index and remove ensure_full_index().
> 
> Change it to only expands the index when using --sparse.

s/expands/expand/

These two sentences should be combined, anyway.

  Enable the sparse index for 'git grep', and only call
  ensure_full_index() when the --sparse argument is provided.

Show 9 quoted lines

> The p2000 tests demonstrate a ~99.4% execution time reduction for
> `git grep` using a sparse index.
> 
> Test                                  Before       After
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> git grep --cached bogus (full-v3)     0.019        0.018  (-5.2%)
> git grep --cached bogus (full-v4)     0.017        0.016  (-5.8%)
> git grep --cached bogus (sparse-v3)   0.29         0.0015 (-99.4%)
> git grep --cached bogus (sparse-v4)   0.30         0.0018 (-99.4%)

Last time I asked that you don't present this to look like a performance test to make it clear that it is not the end-to-end process time. You removed the test numbers, but it still looks like end-to-end process time, then elaborate after the table.

Instead, you can prepare the reader before the table using something like this:

  The p2000 tests do not demonstrate a significant improvement,
  because the index read is a small portion of the full process
  time, compared to the blob parsing. The times below reflect the
  time spent in the "do_read_index" trace region as shown using
  GIT_TRACE2_PERF=1.

Show 5 quoted lines

> -	/* TODO: audit for interaction with sparse-index. */
> -	ensure_full_index(repo->index);
> +	if (grep_sparse)
> +		ensure_full_index(repo->index);
> +

As we've discussed, there are ways to remove even this call, but that shouldn't hold up this series which is already an improvement.

Thanks, -Stolee