On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:18:22AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > I do worry about the case where annotated tags greatly outnumber
> > branches, so this binary search is extra overhead and the performance
> > may degrade. Would it be worth checking the ref to see if it lies
> > within "refs/heads/" (or even _not_ in "refs/tags/") before doing
> > this commit-graph check?
> 
> Ah, clever.

Good idea. Benchmarks for my test repository (which definitely isn't
representative, but it's at least some numbers) show that restricting to
"refs/heads/" diminishes almost all the gains, while restricting to
everything but "refs/tags/" performs almost the same (it's a tiny bit
slower, probably because of the added string comparisons):

    Benchmark #1: all refs: git-fetch
      Time (mean ± σ):     32.959 s ±  0.282 s    [User: 29.801 s, System: 5.137 s]
      Range (min … max):   32.760 s … 33.158 s    2 runs

    Benchmark #2: refs/heads: git-fetch
      Time (mean ± σ):     56.955 s ±  0.002 s    [User: 53.447 s, System: 5.362 s]
      Range (min … max):   56.953 s … 56.957 s    2 runs

    Benchmark #3: !refs/tags: git-fetch
      Time (mean ± σ):     33.447 s ±  0.003 s    [User: 30.160 s, System: 5.027 s]
      Range (min … max):   33.444 s … 33.449 s    2 runs

    Summary
      'all refs: git-fetch' ran
        1.01 ± 0.01 times faster than '!refs/tags: git-fetch'
        1.73 ± 0.01 times faster than 'refs/heads: git-fetch'

This is easily explained by the fact that the test repo has most of its
refs neither in "refs/tags/" nor in "refs/heads/", but rather in special
namespaces like "refs/merge-requests/", "refs/environments/" or
"refs/keep-around/".

I like the idea of excluding "refs/tags/" though: as you point out,
chances are high that these don't point to commits but to annotated tags
instead. So I'll go with that, thanks!

Patrick