Re: [PATCH 02/20] t/perf: add performance test for sparse operations
- From
Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 24, 2021, 02:30 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CABPp-BGYP4OdVnUW0t_Veus-bzMPNH97MSNBdyH=e-iuN2b2jw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <a8c6322a3dbe1130dd2026b600a896e86d54a95d.1614111270.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 12:14 PM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 67 quoted lines
> > From: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > > Create a test script that takes the default performance test (the Git > codebase) and multiplies it by 256 using four layers of duplicated > trees of width four. This results in nearly one million blob entries in > the index. Then, we can clone this repository with sparse-checkout > patterns that demonstrate four copies of the initial repository. Each > clone will use a different index format or mode so peformance can be > tested across the different options. > > Note that the initial repo is stripped of submodules before doing the > copies. This preserves the expected data shape of the sparse index, > because directories containing submodules are not collapsed to a sparse > directory entry. > > Run a few Git commands on these clones, especially those that use the > index (status, add, commit). > > Here are the results on my Linux machine: > > Test > -------------------------------------------------------------- > 2000.2: git status (full-index-v3) 0.37(0.30+0.09) > 2000.3: git status (full-index-v4) 0.39(0.32+0.10) > 2000.4: git add -A (full-index-v3) 1.42(1.06+0.20) > 2000.5: git add -A (full-index-v4) 1.26(0.98+0.16) > 2000.6: git add . (full-index-v3) 1.40(1.04+0.18) > 2000.7: git add . (full-index-v4) 1.26(0.98+0.17) > 2000.8: git commit -a -m A (full-index-v3) 1.42(1.11+0.16) > 2000.9: git commit -a -m A (full-index-v4) 1.33(1.08+0.16) > > It is perhaps noteworthy that there is an improvement when using index > version 4. This is because the v3 index uses 108 MiB while the v4 > index uses 80 MiB. Since the repeated portions of the directories are > very short (f3/f1/f2, for example) this ratio is less pronounced than in > similarly-sized real repositories. > > Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <dstolee@microsoft.com> > --- > t/perf/p2000-sparse-operations.sh | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 87 insertions(+) > create mode 100755 t/perf/p2000-sparse-operations.sh > > diff --git a/t/perf/p2000-sparse-operations.sh b/t/perf/p2000-sparse-operations.sh > new file mode 100755 > index 000000000000..52597683376e > --- /dev/null > +++ b/t/perf/p2000-sparse-operations.sh > @@ -0,0 +1,87 @@ > +#!/bin/sh > + > +test_description="test performance of Git operations using the index" > + > +. ./perf-lib.sh > + > +test_perf_default_repo > + > +SPARSE_CONE=f2/f4/f1 > + > +test_expect_success 'setup repo and indexes' ' > + git reset --hard HEAD && > + # Remove submodules from the example repo, because our > + # duplication of the entire repo creates an unlikly data shape. > + git config --file .gitmodules --get-regexp "submodule.*.path" >modules && > + rm -f .gitmodules && > + git add .gitmodules &&
Why not `git rm [-f] .gitmodules` instead of these two commands? Is there something special about .gitmodules that requires this special handling?
Show 5 quoted lines
> + for module in $(awk "{print \$2}" modules)
> + do
> + git rm $module || return 1
> + done &&
> + git add . &&What does the `git add .` do? I don't see any changes there weren't already git-add'ed or git-rm'ed.
Show 67 quoted lines
> + git commit -m "remove submodules" &&
> +
> + echo bogus >a &&
> + cp a b &&
> + git add a b &&
> + git commit -m "level 0" &&
> + BLOB=$(git rev-parse HEAD:a) &&
> + OLD_COMMIT=$(git rev-parse HEAD) &&
> + OLD_TREE=$(git rev-parse HEAD^{tree}) &&
> +
> + for i in $(test_seq 1 4)
> + do
> + cat >in <<-EOF &&
> + 100755 blob $BLOB a
> + 040000 tree $OLD_TREE f1
> + 040000 tree $OLD_TREE f2
> + 040000 tree $OLD_TREE f3
> + 040000 tree $OLD_TREE f4
> + EOF
> + NEW_TREE=$(git mktree <in) &&
> + NEW_COMMIT=$(git commit-tree $NEW_TREE -p $OLD_COMMIT -m "level $i") &&
> + OLD_TREE=$NEW_TREE &&
> + OLD_COMMIT=$NEW_COMMIT || return 1
> + done &&
> +
> + git sparse-checkout init --cone &&
> + git branch -f wide $OLD_COMMIT &&
> + git -c core.sparseCheckoutCone=true clone --branch=wide --sparse . full-index-v3 &&
> + (
> + cd full-index-v3 &&
> + git sparse-checkout init --cone &&
> + git sparse-checkout set $SPARSE_CONE &&
> + git config index.version 3 &&
> + git update-index --index-version=3
> + ) &&
> + git -c core.sparseCheckoutCone=true clone --branch=wide --sparse . full-index-v4 &&
> + (
> + cd full-index-v4 &&
> + git sparse-checkout init --cone &&
> + git sparse-checkout set $SPARSE_CONE &&
> + git config index.version 4 &&
> + git update-index --index-version=4
> + )
> +'
> +
> +test_perf_on_all () {
> + command="$@"
> + for repo in full-index-v3 full-index-v4
> + do
> + test_perf "$command ($repo)" "
> + (
> + cd $repo &&
> + echo >>$SPARSE_CONE/a &&
> + $command
> + )
> + "
> + done
> +}
> +
> +test_perf_on_all git status
> +test_perf_on_all git add -A
> +test_perf_on_all git add .
> +test_perf_on_all git commit -a -m A
> +
> +test_done
> --
> gitgitgadgetOther than the two minor questions, the rest looks good to me.