Re: [PATCH 06/10] dir: use expand_to_path() for sparse directories

On 4/20/2021 8:53 PM, Elijah Newren wrote:

One more thing:

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 5:52 PM Elijah Newren [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:01 AM Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Test                                  HEAD~1            HEAD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.4: git status (sparse-index-v3)  1.50(1.43+0.10)   0.04(0.04+0.03) -97.3%
2000.5: git status (sparse-index-v4)  1.50(1.43+0.10)   0.04(0.03+0.04) -97.3%

Um, I'm confused.  In the previous patch you claimed the following speedups:

2000.4: git status (sparse-index-v3)  2.43(2.33+0.14)  0.04(0.05+0.04) -98.4%
2000.5: git status (sparse-index-v4)  2.44(2.35+0.13)  0.05(0.04+0.07) -98.0%

I don't understand why the "Before" for this patch claims 1.50 as the
initial speed, if the "After" for the last patch was 0.04.  Should the
previous commit message have instead claimed:

2000.4: git status (sparse-index-v3)  2.43(2.33+0.14)  1.50(1.43+0.10) -38.3%
2000.5: git status (sparse-index-v4)  2.44(2.35+0.13)  1.50(1.43+0.10) -38.5%

...

quoted

Oh!  So, the previous patch was testing without enumerating untracked
files (because it did those slowly), whereas this one enumerates
untracked files and is still able to achieve the same performance?
This wasn't very clear from the commit message.  Maybe I'm just bad at
reading, but perhaps the commit message could be tweaked slightly to
make this more clear?

Why is the subject of this commit "dir: use expand_to_path() ..." if
it only touches t1092-sparse-checkout-compatibility.sh?

 
You are right to be confused. This is another patch that simplified due
to refactors in the protections branch. This should just be squashed into
the previous.

For context: an earlier version inserted ensure_full_index() before
every call to index_name_pos() and then this patch swapped that for
a call to expand_to_path(). The change in the protections branch was
to have index_name_pos() call expand_to_path() itself, preventing the
need for these ensure_full_index() calls.

Thanks,
-Stolee