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

From: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Date: Apr 3, 2007, 23:00 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.98.0704031856110.28181@xanadu.home>
In-Reply-To: <56b7f5510704031540i4df918e6g5a82389b6759c50b@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Dana How wrote:

> Do you get what you want if you move to fewer larger INDEX files
> but not pack files -- in the extreme, one large index file?

No that doesn't solve the clone/fetch of large amount of data cleanly.

Show 5 quoted lines

> A "super index" could be built from multiple .idx files.
> This would be a new file (format) unencumbered by the past,
> so it could be tried out more quickly.
> Just like objects are pruned when packed,
> .idx files could be pruned when the super index is built.

This is an idea to consider independently of any other issues.

Show 6 quoted lines

> Perhaps a number of (<2GB) packfiles and a large index
> file could work out.
> 
> Larger and larger pack files make me nervous.
> They are expensive to manipulate,
> and >2GB requires a file format change.

No. Larger pack files are not more expensive than the same set of objects spread into multiple packs. In fact I'd say it's quite the opposite. And larger pack files do not require a pack format change -- it's just the index that has to change and the index is a local matter.

Nicolas