Re: Performance issue exposed by git-filter-branch
- From
- Ken Brownfield <krb@irridia.com>
- Date
- Dec 21, 2010, 04:59 UTC
- Message-ID
- <5ED25D1E-3028-43B7-9EA7-8E94773EA3E1@irridia.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTi=eWaaGKGpUptdkVg5iEMiZK5FQ9URjUTgd+LxB@mail.gmail.com>
Filename lengths: min 4 avg 50 median 51 max 178 Directory depths: min 1 avg 5 median 6 max 13
Pretty standard Python naming/hierarchy, really.
Thanks! Ken
On Dec 17, 2010, at 5:01 AM, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Ken Brownfield <krb@irridia.com> wrote: >> cache_name_compare (and the presumed follow-ons of memcpy/sha/malloc/etc) is the major consumer. > > Other people have given you alternative approaches. I'm just wondering > if we can improve something here. cache_name_compare() is essentially > memcmp() on two full paths. A tree-based index might help. How long > are your file names on average? Are your trees deep? > -- > Duy > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html