Re: [PATCH 3/3] diffcore-rename: guide inexact rename detection based on basenames

> Hi,
> 
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 6:38 AM Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/6/21 5:52 PM, Elijah Newren via GitGitGadget wrote:
>>> From: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Make use of the new find_basename_matches() function added in the last
>>> two patches, to find renames more rapidly in cases where we can match up
>>> files based on basenames.
>>
>> This is a valuable heuristic.
>>
>>> For the testcases mentioned in commit 557ac0350d ("merge-ort: begin
>>> performance work; instrument with trace2_region_* calls", 2020-10-28),
>>> this change improves the performance as follows:
>>>
>>>                             Before                  After
>>>     no-renames:       13.815 s ±  0.062 s    13.138 s ±  0.086 s
>>>     mega-renames:   1799.937 s ±  0.493 s   169.488 s ±  0.494 s
>>>     just-one-mega:    51.289 s ±  0.019 s     5.061 s ±  0.017 s
>>
>> These numbers are very impressive.
>>
>> Before I get too deep into reviewing these patches, I do want
>> to make it clear that the speed-up is coming at the cost of
>> a behavior change. We are restricting the "best match" search
>> to be first among files with common base name (although maybe
>> I would use 'suffix'?). If we search for a rename among all
>> additions and deletions ending the ".txt" we might find a
>> similarity match that is 60% and declare that a rename, even
>> if there is a ".txt" -> ".md" pair that has a 70% match.
> 
> I'm glad you all are open to possible behavioral changes, but I was
> proposing a much smaller behavioral change that is quite different
> than what you have suggested here.  Perhaps my wording was poor; I
> apologize for forgetting that "basename" has different meanings in
> different contexts.  Let me try again; I am not treating the filename
> extension as special in any manner here; by "basename" I just mean the
> portion of the path ignoring any leading directories.  Thus
>     src/foo.txt
> might be a good match against
>     source/foo.txt
> but this optimization as a preliminary step would not consider
> matching src/foo.txt against any of
>     source/bar.txt
>     source/foo.md
> since the basenames ('bar.txt' and 'foo.md') do not match our original
> file's basename ('foo.txt').
> 
> Of course, if this preliminary optimization step fails to find another
> "foo.txt" to match src/foo.txt against (or finds more than one and
> thus doesn't compare against any of them), then the fallback inexact
> rename detection matrix might match it against either of those two
> latter paths, as it always has.

>> So, in this way, we are changing the optimization function
>> that is used to determine the "best" rename available. It
>> might be good to update documentation for how we choose
>> renames:
> 
> Seems reasonable; I'll add some commentary below on the rules...

>>      i. among files with the same basename (trailer
>>         after final '.') select pairs with highest
>>         similarity.
> 
> This is an interesting idea, but is not what I implemented.

>  It is
> possible that your suggestion is also a useful optimization; it'd be
> hard to know without trying.  However, as noted in optimization batch
> 8 that I'll be submitting later, I'm worried about having any
> optimization pre-steps doing more than O(1) comparisons per path (and
> here you suggest comparing each .txt file with all other .txt files);
> doing that can interact badly with optimization batch 9.
> Additionally, unless we do something to avoid re-comparing files again
> when doing the later all-unmatched-files-against-each-other check,
> then worst case behavior can approach twice as slow as the original
> code.