From: Jeff Hostetler <git@jeffhostetler.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 18:27:24 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/3] read-cache: speed up add_index_entry
Message-ID: <6f31ee65-517e-419c-b0c1-3ccdd3f95b37@jeffhostetler.com>
In-Reply-To: <20170407044626.ypsqnyxguw43gprm@sigill.intra.peff.net>



On 4/7/2017 12:46 AM, Jeff King wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 04:34:39PM +0000, git@jeffhostetler.com wrote:
>
>> Teach add_index_entry_with_check() and has_dir_name()
>> to avoid index lookups if the given path sorts after
>> the last entry in the index.
>>
>> This saves at least 2 binary searches per entry.
>>
>> This improves performance during checkout and read-tree because
>> merge_working_tree() and unpack_trees() processes a list of already
>> sorted entries.
>
> Just thinking about this algorithmically for a moment. You're saving the
> binary search when the input is given in sorted order. But in other
> cases you're adding an extra strcmp() before the binary search begins.
> So it's a tradeoff.
>
> How often is the input sorted?  You save O(log n) strcmps for a "hit"
> with your patch, and one for a "miss". So it's a net win if we expect at
> least 1/log(n) of additions to be sorted (I'm talking about individual
> calls, but it should scale linearly either way over a set of n calls).
>
> I have no clue if that's a reasonable assumption or not.

I was seeing checkout call merge_working_tree to iterate over the
source index/trees and call add_index_entry() for each.  For example,
in a "checkout -b" like operation where both sides are the same, this
calls keep_entry() which appends the entry to the new index array.
The append path should always be taken because the iteration is being
driven from a sorted list.

I would think calls to add/stage individual files arrive in random
order, so I'm not suggesting replacing the code -- just checking the
end first.

Jeff