Re: git-index-pack really does suck..

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
>> First, I truly believe we should have a 64-bit pack index and fewer 
>> larger packs than many small packs.
>
> I'll buy that.  ;-)
>  
>> Which leaves us with the actual pack index lookup.  At that point the 
>> cost of finding an existing object and finding that a given object 
>> doesn't exist is about the same thing, isn't it?
>
> Here's the rub:  in the missing object case we didn't find it
> in the pack index, but it could be loose.  That's one failed
> syscall per object if the object isn't loose.  If the object
> isn't loose, it could be that it was *just* removed by a
> running prune-packed, and the packfile that it was moved
> to was created after we scanned for packfiles, so time to
> rescan...