From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53184211B3 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 14:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727573AbeLQOUX (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:20:23 -0500 Received: from mail-qt1-f193.google.com ([209.85.160.193]:40332 "EHLO mail-qt1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726660AbeLQOUX (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:20:23 -0500 Received: by mail-qt1-f193.google.com with SMTP id k12so14171726qtf.7 for ; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:20:22 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=FS6/I7WZUvD6ldVvZyJyqHYWnxRVcgi6q7mK+A+MW8A=; b=XqSqGTN3JWlrUnpmC6AMJKvI6lkOhfpKY9JHNeiewbE5pp58e/S0MAHmfh8YL9PP08 0dt2Eioum/lDphkZWtgeRuaPbrCDcvIYtSuoGaQiala/s+PdjrrfviL5bDpQx3ConnMo QCJuW6B9rUhjk5y4s874P6bATJLWAqBC0wlYWGMmhBeMlyBemByhCwCfwq1z6yGBEImT nJ89Vh26RvEnoZVULKYWLAkCFMsZMCb+iBEGf9nCDS/5t9Phskrz/wch40VwoEOrD9VQ VfaA+aWb2zTA2ZX417/mzjeRnwe2CU9KZg7ZwFWQJxjHrKhZTMQaeLT0o0hntfqPkF4T 1n0Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=FS6/I7WZUvD6ldVvZyJyqHYWnxRVcgi6q7mK+A+MW8A=; b=k9Bfe7kgVZjnu0Lz4jVH2l6K3Whn+L2OV0sJdfdvKx6wM/QBHLjn5WBl1BIcf1g9m5 WRUPda0ZZVroLWqUPAWgjOCcVKyuR7RIBgqXYo4tOHX0Aa/YIvH9rw8vo079L5yRo4ea 4YYwTtiY8Ko6KkpzlfXDSTYWS2ooINTnqEySppqzR8vI1GHMZx+Ok8s+Apo4ZQCXl1jE XlPmhZXiJwLLDDCHB9HXswplLKG3HTgBLRTaUYKAnUbWTbrs8OTYU4tZI+NOML3ZW0Nv klrupg7WOw/DF7g0SvC6C+oVJDtacsppV7adQ12v6F4CLMRHxqms4cS9/sOvi8/aXklE A2ww== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWY/nCRWR4zVYRndHTq3zAjrPR9gAAvs4NV/fejVIx0EmCgKCx2T MvwoKDYzYHekm/ptx3Kq/t4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XfFolCMkH3HN7J6NHN0zgyYCSNTKQ9gaLC5WIoHccJpFIhF23aTMkoIcgOM0dcKCwzfUVoHA== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:d124:: with SMTP id a33mr13127245qvh.19.1545056421527; Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:20:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4898:6808:13e:b986:23f4:3544:4b58? ([2001:4898:8010:0:a2bc:23f4:3544:4b58]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t123sm5534902qkc.6.2018.12.17.06.20.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 17 Dec 2018 06:20:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] revision: implement sparse algorithm To: =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peff@peff.net, jrnieder@gmail.com, Junio C Hamano , Derrick Stolee References: <87efaj1y77.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> From: Derrick Stolee Message-ID: <867aa5c3-60e0-2467-795a-40aac58f306b@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2018 09:20:20 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/64.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87efaj1y77.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 12/14/2018 6:32 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14 2018, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote: > >> Despite these potential drawbacks, the benefits of the algorithm >> are clear. By adding a counter to 'add_children_by_path' and >> 'mark_tree_contents_uninteresting', I measured the number of >> parsed trees for the two algorithms in a variety of repos. > We spend a long time printing those out before we ever get to > "Enumerating objects". > > Which was where I was trying to test this, i.e. is this a lot of work we > perform before we print out the progress bar, and regardless of this > optimization should have other progress output there, so we can see this > time we're spending on this? It is true that part of the problem is that a 'git push' will sit for a while without presenting any feedback until this part of the algorithm is complete. The current series intends to significantly reduce this time. As for adding progress to this step, I'm open to it. It can be done as a sequel series. What would we use to describe this section? "Enumerating remote objects"? Thanks, -Stolee