From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] documentation: add documentation for the bitmap format Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:45:22 -0400 Message-ID: <20130627024521.GA6936@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1372116193-32762-1-git-send-email-tanoku@gmail.com> <1372116193-32762-10-git-send-email-tanoku@gmail.com> <7vtxkl28m7.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Shawn Pearce , Junio C Hamano , Colby Ranger , git To: Vicent =?utf-8?B?TWFydMOt?= X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jun 27 04:45:31 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Us2DB-0008Nq-7M for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 27 Jun 2013 04:45:29 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751801Ab3F0CpZ convert rfc822-to-quoted-printable (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:45:25 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:34679 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751522Ab3F0CpZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:45:25 -0400 Received: (qmail 1269 invoked by uid 102); 27 Jun 2013 02:46:29 -0000 Received: from c-98-244-76-202.hsd1.va.comcast.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (98.244.76.202) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 26 Jun 2013 21:46:29 -0500 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 26 Jun 2013 22:45:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 04:36:54AM +0200, Vicent Mart=C3=AD wrote: > That was a very rude reply. :( >=20 > Please refrain from interacting with me in the ML in the future. I'l > do accordingly. I agree that the pointer arithmetic thing may have been a little much, but I think there are some points we need to address in Shawn's email. In particular, it seems like the slowness we saw with the v1 bitmap format is not what Shawn and Colby have experienced. So it's possible that our test setup is bad or different. Or maybe the C v1 reading implementation had some problems that are fixable. It's hard to say because we haven't shown any code that can be timed and compared. And the pack-order versus idx-order for the bitmaps is still up in the air. Do we have numbers on the on-disk sizes of the resulting EWAHs? Th= e pack-order ones should be more amenable to run-length encoding, especially as you get further down into history (the tip ones would mostly be 1's, no matter how you order them). -Peff