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,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE 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 DAE0B1F466 for ; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 18:57:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727533AbgA3S5e (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:57:34 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:62817 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727285AbgA3S5d (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:57:33 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A88AAA463; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:57:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=Aq1xf/Qho09ExrDsmcyH9UDIwkg=; b=lXGIaB K3vsKxoAPQjC5sQnzmG1KcSQCrVvJ0Cm6RKhqbt772RXUiCzdD6tFbYyjoDe2UcI dgW9euKuMzq4qiYqRIM0Q+tLjpAJ0nbuJOiZHN8/4WV/GZu4n9ueP+vJYp3cnkhE XTZMt7cD5/ZCVsBQ8i2kALJkarY+NrjJjwICs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=TNfS8rpUQQfWTYq2E2KqIX0uEWPSsSUY QpaeMTkA+JHaRw5mXOKNbe4uLIToPtR5HDCA7D2Mon2WBKBzPTMEpFMp8bhtLy/5 XdsuDzIwel767OHn3vnshmmxgwrpQWBk1P1e7mapOvkmjkgzz41zzX9xvn0bq2ip bPqXIWv9Pvk= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A4AAA462; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:57:33 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A909AA461; Thu, 30 Jan 2020 13:57:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Jonathan Nieder Cc: Jonathan Tan , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] fetch: forgo full connectivity check if --filter References: <20200129204326.GB17350@google.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 10:57:27 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20200129204326.GB17350@google.com> (Jonathan Nieder's message of "Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:43:26 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 5D248424-4392-11EA-9207-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Jonathan Nieder writes: > Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> If a filter is specified, we do not need a full connectivity check on >> the contents of the packfile we just fetched; we only need to check that >> the objects referenced are promisor objects. >> >> This significantly speeds up fetches into repositories that have many >> promisor objects, because during the connectivity check, all promisor >> objects are enumerated (to mark them UNINTERESTING), and that takes a >> significant amount of time. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan >> --- >> For example, a local fetch was sped up from 6.63s to 3.39s. The bulk of >> the remaining time is spent in yet another connectivity check >> (fetch_refs -> check_exist_and_connected) prior to the fetch - that will >> hopefully be done in a subsequent patch. > > Can this information (at least the speedup) be included in the comment > message? > > Or even better, can we demonstrate the impact using a perf test? It does make sense, but let's queue these two first and then add it as a follow-up patch on top. Thanks for writing and reviewing.