Re: Watchman support for git

From: Sebastian Schuberth <sschuberth@gmail.com>
Date: May 8, 2014, 19:17 UTC
Message-ID: <536BD864.5090804@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5364654088dc4_4d2010fb2ec7d@nysa.notmuch>

On 03.05.2014 05:40, Felipe Contreras wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

>>> That's very interesting. Do you get similar improvements when doing
>>> something similar in Merurial (watchman vs . no watchman).
>>
>> I have not tried it.  My understanding is that this is why Facebook
>> wrote Watchman and added support for it to Mercurial, so I would assume
>> that the improvements are at least this good.
> 
> Yeah, my bet is that they are actually much better (because Mercurial
> can't be so optimized as Git).
> 
> I'm interested in this number because if watchman in Git is improving it
> by 30%, but in Mercurial it's improving it by 100% (made up number),
> therefore it makes sens that you might want it more if you are using hg,
> but not so much if you are using git.
> 
> Also, if similar repositories with Mercurial+watchman are actually
> faster than Git+watchman, that means that there's room for improvement
> in your implementation. This is not a big issue at this point of the
> process, just something nice to know.

The article at [1] has some details, they claim "For our repository, enabling Watchman integration has made Mercurial's status command more than 5x faster than Git's status command".

[1] https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/

-- 
Sebastian Schuberth