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=-4.0 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 E2513211B5 for ; Fri, 1 Feb 2019 09:27:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726598AbfBAJ1H (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:27:07 -0500 Received: from mail-vs1-f41.google.com ([209.85.217.41]:34341 "EHLO mail-vs1-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725765AbfBAJ1H (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 04:27:07 -0500 Received: by mail-vs1-f41.google.com with SMTP id y27so3800797vsi.1 for ; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 01:27:06 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=r87wL8ZP+roX2pNjrHTuBFsYFPL0GcnBtfjeSNl7ALw=; b=ldu5nu8Nniejcy1uVJWQQyFAcsvmkuE+fVmDtFG4l+Hog8AKHRkzJzAmOH9shde32V j95oFP95RPBpCOPdKfCDHJbOxs90DbUm1BmC5PxKqXuAppgIpJLyqPkQ/LeUahw+wZ5s AAJO7FZDj5aLI+kgOR1FLfbl5P13Qz0ldGadz+6wni0wvvGw/lAMwVbfmqgAijHGAkwF 367ypPfvIa7WfMpnJszSfvUd1klOLIh22unYuecNtS7RhPgJO4BJz5sFHXaLf2rykQLC cAR0oBEjh+uDh2i2zxidjhkpl4BGR0qcPjh/QJLhr5++fodSXlPqWHbXUFDPEWc2tZmY bTUA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=r87wL8ZP+roX2pNjrHTuBFsYFPL0GcnBtfjeSNl7ALw=; b=lKKW+ExoF4AchwgLLVrjUVkqDEgB44FgEy5TZzFRoI1bAooRQhelMnc674j2MGbYE2 YNLwnO94kQta/JlXJN7qaSbAdkpka270K8y9yhOWbN91dgq+cpoeIpdwZh+oLVGfmGFB ZFqF6J1fFFYB9Iad5vQop9cMm/m14viDDr2KtJU/bT315uMWaBMjKKCIc6MZcoLUKcI5 c5JdWjLCJsvQ6NJWj9tVylLiriWSEx99pigREik57PJAu7b7CzysdV8KUOvFHBsiMnar tY+dwQ9fF27y+W1/M3k89MbwHT4t/HJIKKM2OkHMFeL7lbm2D6WMqx33FEoluWFAjaJm 7jRw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukckr1fGjsDgm7AEMme67k+t7sayut6nrItL875oEaXJ+1iECNZj 7sLV/uAJwdGpfhdbPyoRfeVL3wCe7ApFAsPwkaWYH7qZzHA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6Ek37Oqx4XVvueSmG5682Z9kXRl06S9st1SqfiQKN6VPHmRDpGCI+Uc9CtPtJQLr/vPG+Q8ZwysyLHqvLyrD8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:f696:: with SMTP id n22mr17351594vso.175.1549013225700; Fri, 01 Feb 2019 01:27:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Elijah Newren Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 01:26:53 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Comparing rebase --am with --interactive via p3400 To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Git Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Hi Dscho, On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:04 PM Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Hi Elijah, > > as discussed at the Contributors' Summit, I ran p3400 as-is (i.e. with the > --am backend) and then with --keep-empty to force the interactive backend > to be used. Here are the best of 10, on my relatively powerful Windows 10 > laptop, with current `master`. > > With regular rebase --am: > > 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 5.32(0.06+0.15) > 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 33.08(0.04+0.18) > 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 30.29(0.03+0.18) > > with --keep-empty to force the interactive backend: > > 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 3.92(0.03+0.18) > 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 33.92(0.03+0.22) > 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 38.82(0.03+0.16) Awesome, thanks for checking that out. I ran on both linux and mac and saw similar relative performances. Comparing am-based rebase to an implied-interactive rebase on both linux and mac (with a version of git including en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer so that -m gives the same performance that you'd see with --keep-empty), I saw: On Linux: am-based rebase (without -m): 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 1.87(1.64+0.21) 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 7.87(6.24+1.00) 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 5.99(5.05+0.67) interactive-machinery rebase (with -m): 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 1.80(1.60+0.19) 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 6.78(5.70+0.91) 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 6.92(5.70+0.89) On Mac: am-based rebase (without -m): Test this tree ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 2.68(1.68+0.68) 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 8.89(5.86+2.94) 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 7.87(5.35+2.51) interactive-machinery rebase (with -m): Test this tree ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3400.2: rebase on top of a lot of unrelated changes 1.99(1.61+0.77) 3400.4: rebase a lot of unrelated changes without split-index 8.63(5.38+3.38) 3400.6: rebase a lot of unrelated changes with split-index 9.36(5.53+3.95) > I then changed it to -m to test the current scripted version, trying to > let it run overnight, but my laptop eventually went to sleep and the tests > were not even done. I'll let them continue and report back. > > My conclusion after seeing these numbers is: the interactive rebase is > really close to the performance of the --am backend. So to me, it makes a > total lot of sense to switch --merge over to it, and to make --merge the > default. We still should investigate why the split-index performance is so > significantly worse, though. Cool, I'll update my patches to make --merge the default (building on top of en/rebase-merge-on-sequencer) and post it as an RFC. But yeah, we should also check into why the split-index performance becomes a bit worse with such a change. Thanks, Elijah