Re: Why are ref_lists sorted?

From: Julian Phillips <julian@quantumfyre.co.uk>
Date: Mar 19, 2007, 05:22 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703190520150.24247@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0703190321370.28570@beast.quantumfyre.co.uk>

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007, Julian Phillips wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> A bit of investigation showed this to be due to the first attempt to read a 
> ref causing the packed refs to be loaded.  In my test repo the packed-refs 
> file has over 9000 entries, but I still thought that it would load faster 
> than that.  It turns out that the overhead is from sorting the refs when 
> building the ref_list.  If I remove the code for sorting the entries I lose 
> that initial 1s delay, without appearing to break anything in the fetch. 
> However I assume that it's there for a reason ...
>

Actually, it's worse than that ... I forgot about the other end. If I point fetch at an upload-pack with the sorted removed the time goes down by another second. So that sorting accounts for 2 of the 3s ...

-- 
Julian

  ---
Know thyself.  If you need help, call the C.I.A.