Re: [PATCH 3/4] pack-objects: don't traverse objects unnecessarily
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Nov 12, 2011, 06:55 UTC
- Message-ID
- <7v1utdrfsf.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAEik5nNmAnPni+rnLm7n5tO7f=LV_1TuTbVqxgjVaoqqaF_Ukw@mail.gmail.com>
Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: > >> I am not sure if this produces the identical result that was benchmarked >> in the original series. > I was not either when I wrote the patch, and I had hoped to confirm > the results you showed in the message of 1b4bb16b9ec.
I actually am reasonably sure the result will not be identical, but I also do not think it matters. The differences would appear only for entries that have been filled earlier, which should be a minority.
> unable to figure out how you generated those numbers so I wasn't able > to do so (and had planned to get back to you to find out how you made > those tables). Were you able to verify the ordering did not regress?
No; I was hoping you would redo the benchmark using 5f44324 (core: log offset pack data accesses happened, 2011-07-06).