From: Santi Béjar <sbejar@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:47:03 GMT
Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)
Message-ID: <8aa486160703140447g560e3b42j7a14f6c3032bb77a@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqiwawva.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 3/14/07, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> "Santi Béjar" <sbejar@gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> I tried the "NULL fetch between 1000-refs repositories" test,
> >> which prompted the git-fetch--tool work that was done on
> >> jc/fetch topic in 'next', with the following versions:
> >>
> >>  (1) 1.5.0 (without any git-fetch--tool optimization)
> >>  (2) master (ditto)
> >>  (3) master with jc/fetch (but not sb/fetch topic)
> >>  (4) next ((3) plus sb/fetch and others)
> >>
> >> The test scripts are at the end of this message.  Both (1) and
> >> (2) take 3 minutes 7 seconds wallclock time.  (3) improves it
> >> down to 15 seconds.  (4) makes the operation spend 24 seconds
> >> (the times are all on my primary machine x86-64 with 1GB, hot
> >> cache and average of three runs each).
> >
> > I think it is not fair,...

[...]

>, and you may not like the
> numbers, but if you call that is "not fair", I do not know what
> could be considered fair.

I would consider fair the comparison you did not quote, a comparison
with the merge logic written in C. I know that (4) is a step backwards
in performance as it is now, and I understand that with those numbers
the "Split" patch must be reverted.

Santi