git@vger.kernel.org mailing list mirror (one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@oracle.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org,
	"Quentin Casasnovas" <quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com>,
	"Shawn Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>,
	"Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy" <pclouds@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fetch: use "quick" has_sha1_file for tag following
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 10:39:52 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqfunyzv6f.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161013200644.lnustevmpvufbg5y@sigill.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Thu, 13 Oct 2016 16:06:44 -0400")

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

> So it's certainly better. But 7500 packs is just silly, and squeezing
> out ~400ms there is hardly worth it. If you repack this same case into a
> single pack, the command drops to 5ms. So yes, there's close to an order
> of magnitude speedup here, but you get that _and_ another order of
> magnitude just by repacking.

"7500 is silly" equally applies to the "quick" (and sloppy, if I am
reading your "Failing in this direction doesn't make me feel great."
correctly) approach, I think, which argues for not taking either
change X-<.

I agree that the fallout from the inaccuracy of "quick" approach is
probably acceptable and the next "fetch" will correct it anyway, so
let's do the "quick but inaccurate" for now and perhaps cook it in
'next' for a bit longer than other topics?

  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-14 17:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-12 22:30 Huge performance bottleneck reading packs Vegard Nossum
2016-10-12 22:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-10-13  7:17   ` Vegard Nossum
2016-10-13 14:50     ` Jeff King
2016-10-12 23:01 ` Jeff King
2016-10-12 23:18   ` Jeff King
2016-10-12 23:47     ` Jeff King
2016-10-13  9:04       ` Vegard Nossum
2016-10-14  9:35         ` Jakub Narębski
2016-10-13  7:20   ` Vegard Nossum
2016-10-13 15:26     ` Jeff King
2016-10-13 16:53       ` [PATCH] fetch: use "quick" has_sha1_file for tag following Jeff King
2016-10-13 17:04         ` Jeff King
2016-10-13 20:06           ` Jeff King
2016-10-14 17:39             ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2016-10-14 18:59               ` Jeff King
2016-10-17 17:30                 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-10-18 10:28                   ` Jeff King
2016-10-13 18:18       ` Huge performance bottleneck reading packs Vegard Nossum
2016-10-13 20:43         ` Jeff King
2016-10-14  6:55           ` Vegard Nossum
2016-10-14 19:00             ` Jeff King

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

  List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=xmqqfunyzv6f.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pclouds@gmail.com \
    --cc=peff@peff.net \
    --cc=quentin.casasnovas@oracle.com \
    --cc=spearce@spearce.org \
    --cc=vegard.nossum@oracle.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).