list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: Johannes Schindelin <>
To: Elijah Newren <>
Subject: Comparing rebase --am with --interactive via p3400
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 07:04:31 +0100 (STD)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)

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)

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.


             reply	other threads:[~2019-02-01  6:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-02-01  6:04 Johannes Schindelin [this message]
2019-02-01  7:22 ` Johannes Schindelin
2019-02-01  9:26 ` Elijah Newren
2019-12-27 21:11 ` Alban Gruin
2019-12-27 22:45   ` Elijah Newren
2019-12-29 17:25     ` Alban Gruin
2020-01-02 20:17       ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-01-31 21:23   ` Johannes Schindelin
2020-04-01 11:33     ` Alban Gruin
2020-04-01 14:00       ` Phillip Wood
2020-04-04 20:33         ` Johannes Schindelin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Comparing rebase --am with --interactive via p3400' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link list mirror (unofficial, one of many)

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror
	git clone --mirror http://ou63pmih66umazou.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://czquwvybam4bgbro.onion/git
	git clone --mirror http://hjrcffqmbrq6wope.onion/git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 git git/ \
	public-inbox-index git

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroups are available over NNTP:
 note: .onion URLs require Tor:

code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

AGPL code for this site: git clone