On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 07:01:54PM +0100, Christian Couder wrote: > On Mon, Feb 7, 2022 at 7:03 AM Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > > Benchmarks in a repository with about 2,1 million refs and an up-to-date > > commit-graph show a 20% speedup when mirror-fetching: > > > > Benchmark 1: git fetch --atomic +refs/*:refs/* (v2.35.0) > > Time (mean ± σ): 75.264 s ± 1.115 s [User: 68.199 s, System: 10.094 s] > > Range (min … max): 74.145 s … 76.862 s 5 runs > > > > Benchmark 2: git fetch --atomic +refs/*:refs/* (HEAD) > > Time (mean ± σ): 62.350 s ± 0.854 s [User: 55.412 s, System: 9.976 s] > > Range (min … max): 61.224 s … 63.216 s 5 runs > > > > Summary > > 'git fetch --atomic +refs/*:refs/* (HEAD)' ran > > 1.21 ± 0.02 times faster than 'git fetch --atomic +refs/*:refs/* (v2.35.0)' > > The commit message and code make sense to me, but I wonder if there is > a reason why --atomic is used when fetching. The repository that I was mirror-fetching into needs to update a big bunch of references, and doing that via `--atomic` is more efficient than doing it without, and this shows in the benchmark. I did another benchmarking run without `--atomic`, and it is indeed about 30 seconds slower for both cases. But interestingly the relative performance improvement is still roughly the same: Benchmark 1: git fetch +refs/*:refs/* (v2.35.0) Time (mean ± σ): 115.587 s ± 2.009 s [User: 109.874 s, System: 11.305 s] Range (min … max): 113.584 s … 118.820 s 5 runs Benchmark 2: git fetch +refs/*:refs/* (pks-fetch-pack-optim-v1~) Time (mean ± σ): 96.859 s ± 0.624 s [User: 91.948 s, System: 10.980 s] Range (min … max): 96.180 s … 97.875 s 5 runs Summary 'git fetch +refs/*:refs/* (pks-fetch-pack-optim-v1~)' ran 1.19 ± 0.02 times faster than 'git fetch +refs/*:refs/* (v2.35.0)' I'll update the commit message to just use this new benchmark so that the `--atomic` flag doesn't cause any questions. Patrick