Re: [PATCH] rebase: be cleverer with rebased upstream branches

From: Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 13, 2011, 03:14 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103122159300.15442@debian>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1103122005490.15442@debian>

On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Santi B?jar wrote:
> 
> > Could you test also variants of the exponential strategy?
> 
> I guess I could :-). Will see if I get time for that later today.

So here are the updated figures for the force-updated history (pu-like):

                 u@{10}     u@{100}    u@{1000}
manual         0m0.535s    0m1.164s    0m1.415s
linear         0m1.245s   0m37.367s   5m10.068s
merge-base    0m14.490s   0m15.409s   0m15.508s
exp(1,2)       0m1.056s    0m6.175s   0m27.221s
exp(10,10)     0m1.950s   0m20.031s   0m18.215s
exp(7,7)       0m1.310s    0m6.851s   0m16.757s

and for the non-force-updated history (master-like):

                 u@{10}     u@{100}    u@{1000}
manual         0m0.885s    0m6.126s   0m52.248s
linear         0m1.349s   0m39.688s   5m28.753s
merge-base     0m1.160s    0m1.699s    0m1.901s
exp(1,2)       0m0.769s    0m4.342s    0m7.360s
exp(10,10)     0m0.700s    0m2.535s    0m3.110s
exp(7,7)       0m0.653s    0m2.332s    0m3.506s

exp(10,10) is worst possible for the test cases I picked, since the wanted reflog entry is always the first one in an interval, so almost 10 times as many entries as necessary are considered. I therefore also tried with exp(7,7) to get more fair figures.

/Martin