From: Shaoxuan Yuan <shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com>
To: Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: vdye@github.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] rm: integrate with sparse-index
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2022 11:18:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <12afcbe9-218b-528d-6d81-f39628388ba9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <999169c6-a727-af2a-3361-51ac7b1f1d80@github.com>
On 8/4/2022 10:48 PM, Derrick Stolee wrote:
> On 8/3/2022 12:51 AM, Shaoxuan Yuan wrote:
>> Enable the sparse index within the `git-rm` command.
>>
>> The `p2000` tests demonstrate a ~96% execution time reduction for
>> 'git rm' using a sparse index.
>
> Sorry that I got sidetracked yesterday when I was reviewing this
> series, but I noticed something looking at these results:
>
>> Test before after
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> 2000.74: git rm -f f2/f4/a (full-v3) 0.66 0.88 +33.0%
>> 2000.75: git rm -f f2/f4/a (full-v4) 0.67 0.75 +12.0%
>
> The range of _growth_ here seemed odd, so I wanted to check if this was
> due to a small sample size or not.
Yes, I do feel they are odd, as I've been checking pervious
integrations and p2000 results, they usuallly fall below 10% range.
But I was not discerning enough to name a problem :-(
>> 2000.76: git rm -f f2/f4/a (sparse-v3) 1.99 0.08 -96.0%
>> 2000.77: git rm -f f2/f4/a (sparse-v4) 2.06 0.07 -96.6%
>
> These numbers are as expected.
>
>> test_perf_on_all git read-tree -mu HEAD
>> test_perf_on_all git checkout-index -f --all
>> test_perf_on_all git update-index --add --remove $SPARSE_CONE/a
>> +test_perf_on_all git rm -f $SPARSE_CONE/a
>
> At first, I was confused why we needed '-f' and thought that maybe
> this was turning into a no-op after the first deletion. However, the
> test_perf_on_all helper does an "echo >>$SPARSE_CONE/a" before hand,
> so the file exists _in the worktree_ every time. That requires '-f'
> since otherwise Git complains that we have modifications.
Yeah, it took me some time to find out.
> However, after the first instance the file no longer exists in the
> index, so we are losing some testing of the index modification.
So true, I didn't realize at all.
> We can fix this by resetting the index in each test loop:
>
> test_perf_on_all "git rm -f $SPARSE_CONE/a && git checkout HEAD --
$SPARSE_CONE/a"
>
> Running this version of the test with GIT_PERF_REPEAT_COUNT=10 and
> using the Git repository itself, I get these numbers:
>
> Test HEAD~1 HEAD
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2000.74: git rm ... (full-v3) 0.41(0.37+0.05) 0.43(0.36+0.07) +4.9%
> 2000.75: git rm ... (full-v4) 0.38(0.34+0.05) 0.39(0.35+0.05) +2.6%
> 2000.76: git rm ... (sparse-v3) 0.57(0.56+0.01) 0.05(0.05+0.00) -91.2%
> 2000.77: git rm ... (sparse-v4) 0.57(0.55+0.02) 0.03(0.03+0.00) -94.7%
>
> Yes, the 'git checkout' command is contributing to the overall
> numbers, but it also already has the performance improvements of
> the sparse-index, so it contributes only a little to the performance
> on the left.
>
> (Also note that the full index cases change only by amounts within
> reasonable noise. The repeat count helps there.)
New thing learned, repeat to average out noise.
--
Thanks,
Shaoxuan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-06 3:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-03 4:51 [PATCH v1 0/4] rm: integrate with sparse-index Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 4:51 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] t1092: add tests for `git-rm` Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 14:32 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-03 4:51 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] pathspec.h: move pathspec_needs_expanded_index() from reset.c to here Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 14:35 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-05 7:53 ` Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 4:51 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] rm: expand the index only when necessary Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 14:40 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-05 8:07 ` Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-03 4:51 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] rm: integrate with sparse-index Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-04 14:48 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-06 3:18 ` Shaoxuan Yuan [this message]
2022-08-07 4:13 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] " Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-07 4:13 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] t1092: add tests for `git-rm` Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-10 12:47 ` Derrick Stolee
2022-08-07 4:13 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] pathspec.h: move pathspec_needs_expanded_index() from reset.c to here Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-07 4:13 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] rm: expand the index only when necessary Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-10 0:24 ` Victoria Dye
2022-08-07 4:13 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] rm: integrate with sparse-index Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-08 17:24 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] " Junio C Hamano
2022-08-08 17:51 ` Victoria Dye
2022-08-08 19:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2022-08-10 0:27 ` Victoria Dye
2022-08-10 0:31 ` Shaoxuan Yuan
2022-08-12 18:36 ` Junio C Hamano
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=12afcbe9-218b-528d-6d81-f39628388ba9@gmail.com \
--to=shaoxuan.yuan02@gmail.com \
--cc=derrickstolee@github.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vdye@github.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).