# git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's 5 messages from 2007-09-18 to 2007-09-18. Participants: Mike Hommey, Sam Vilain, Junio C Hamano, Johannes Schindelin. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/9919 ## Mike Hommey, 2007-09-18 09:09 Subject: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Message-ID: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070918090926.GA8927%40glandium.org ``` Hi, I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? $ time git-lost-found real 8m22.167s user 6m44.153s sys 1m16.613s $ time git-prune real 0m0.376s user 0m0.304s sys 0m0.000s Mike ``` ## Sam Vilain, 2007-09-18 09:14 Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Message-ID: <46EF96FD.1050602@vilain.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/46EF96FD.1050602%40vilain.net In-Reply-To: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> ``` Mike Hommey wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? > > $ time git-lost-found > > real 8m22.167s > user 6m44.153s > sys 1m16.613s > > $ time git-prune > > real 0m0.376s > user 0m0.304s > sys 0m0.000s > You're probably already packed. I'd expect a similar speed difference between git-fsck and git-fsck --full. Sam. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2007-09-18 09:18 Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Message-ID: <7v4phswcuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v4phswcuj.fsf%40gitster.siamese.dyndns.org In-Reply-To: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> ``` Mike Hommey writes: > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? fsck validates objects are correct and sane. prune only looks at reachability. ``` ## Mike Hommey, 2007-09-18 09:50 Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Message-ID: <20070918095049.GA9388@glandium.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20070918095049.GA9388%40glandium.org In-Reply-To: <7v4phswcuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> ``` On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Mike Hommey writes: > > > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? > > fsck validates objects are correct and sane. prune only looks > at reachability. Now, the speed difference makes sense, but I wouldn't expect lost-found to actually bother validating objects... Mike ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-09-18 11:13 Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0709181211560.28586%40racer.site In-Reply-To: <20070918095049.GA9388@glandium.org> ``` Hi, On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Mike Hommey wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 02:18:44AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Mike Hommey writes: > > > > > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > > > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? > > > > fsck validates objects are correct and sane. prune only looks > > at reachability. > > Now, the speed difference makes sense, but I wouldn't expect lost-found > to actually bother validating objects... That's why we should get rid of lost-found, and only keep the --lost-found option to git-fsck, to make it clear. And I think that it is too rare that you lost objects and want to find them, to warrant a fast version of it. Ciao, Dscho ```