Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] read-cache: use hashfile instead of git_hash_ctx
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 17, 2021, 22:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqqfsyl57q2.fsf@gitster.g>
- In-Reply-To
- <b94172ccf5e91fe59a1d32774dbec23e624f1135.1621254292.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com>
"Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
> ... > mult-pack-indexes, and commit-graphs. Therefore, it seems prudent to
multi-pack, I would say.
> There are still some remaining: the extension headers are hashed for use
some remaining what? I first read an unwritten word as "issues", but I think the answer is "uses of git_hash_ctx".
> in the End of Index Entries (EOIE) extension. This use of the > git_hash_ctx is left as-is. There are multiple reasons to not use a > hashfile here, including ...
Show 7 quoted lines
> In addition to the test suite passing, I computed indexes using the > previous binaries and the binaries compiled after this change, and found > the index data to be exactly equal. Finally, I did extensive performance > testing of "git update-index --force-write" on repos of various sizes, > including one with over 2 million paths at HEAD. These tests > demonstrated less than 1% difference in behavior, so the performance > should be considered identical.
Hmph, does that mean 128k buffer is overkill and if we wanted to unify the buffer sizes we should have used 8k instead?
Wait, the removal of fsync has made things faster in general, hasn't it? Did something else degrade performance to cancel that gain?
The patch looks an obvious improvement. What was open-coded in longhand is now a well structured series of API calls and the result is much easier to follow and maintain.
Thanks.