Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

On 3/14/07, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

"Santi Béjar" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

quoted

I tried the "NULL fetch between 1000-refs repositories" test,
which prompted the git-fetch--tool work that was done on
jc/fetch topic in 'next', with the following versions:

 (1) 1.5.0 (without any git-fetch--tool optimization)
 (2) master (ditto)
 (3) master with jc/fetch (but not sb/fetch topic)
 (4) next ((3) plus sb/fetch and others)

The test scripts are at the end of this message.  Both (1) and
(2) take 3 minutes 7 seconds wallclock time.  (3) improves it
down to 15 seconds.  (4) makes the operation spend 24 seconds
(the times are all on my primary machine x86-64 with 1GB, hot
cache and average of three runs each).

I think it is not fair,...

[...]

, and you may not like the
numbers, but if you call that is "not fair", I do not know what
could be considered fair.

I would consider fair the comparison you did not quote, a comparison
with the merge logic written in C. I know that (4) is a step backwards
in performance as it is now, and I understand that with those numbers
the "Split" patch must be reverted.

Santi