Re: cherry-pick is slow

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 02:03:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

	git format-patch -1 --stdout $commit | git apply --index --3way

[...]
An unscientific datapoint shows that with a project as small as the kernel,
the difference is noticeable.

For example, v3.4-rc7-22-g3911ff3 (random tip of the day) touches two
paths, and cherry-picking it on top of v3.3 goes like this:

Yeah that's what I would expect. And that's not even that far away.
Cherry-picking the same commit onto v3.0 should be even more noticeable.

I _think_ most of the overhead comes from having to match the large trees
in unpack_trees() even though none of the changes between the base
versions matters for this" cherry-pick".

Both reads the flat index into the core in its entirety and futzing with
the index file format would not affect this comparison, even though it
could improve the performance of "am", if done right, as it could limit
its updates to only two paths.  In the merge case, we pretty much rebuild
the resulting index from scratch by walking the entire tree in
unpack_trees(), so there won't be much benefit.

Perhaps we might want to rethink the way we run merges?

For merge-recursive, we would always want to compute the pair-wise
renames between each side and the ancestor. So that diff to the
cherry-pick destination is always going to be an expensive O(# of
changes between source and dest) operation.

Without renames, you could do better on the actual merge with a
three-way tree walk. E.g., you see that some sub-tree is at tree A in
the "ours" and "ancestor" trees, but at tree B in "theirs". So you don't
have to descend further, and can just say "take theirs" (well, you have
to descend "theirs" to get the values). But I expect it gets more
complicated with the interactions with the index (and is probably not
worth spending much effort on because of the rename issue, anyway).

-Peff