Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > ============== ============= =============== =============== > old-f 1.0.9 darcs-2.3.1 darcs-2.3.99.2 > ============== ============= =============== =============== > get (full) 51.2s 231.9s d=3.5 231.8s d=7.9 > get (lazy) - 38.0s d=0.8 35.6s d=0.5 > pull 100 116.8s 139.2s d=1.4 115.0s d=1.1 > wh 1206ms 343.2ms d=0.0 1790.8ms d=0.0 > wh mod 1208ms 342.7ms d=0.0 1783.2ms d=0.0 > wh -l 7920ms 22976.3ms d=0.2 4335.8ms d=0.0 > record mod 2670ms 57570.6ms d=0.1 33440.5ms d=0.2 > revert mod 2348ms 28263.7ms d=0.2 6829.0ms d=0.1 > (un)revert mod 4920ms 91301.9ms d=0.4 24173.4ms d=0.2 > check 189.0s 994.4s d=89.3 592.9s d=9.1 > repair 166.7s 940.3s d=2.8 584.6s d=14.8 > annotate - - - > pull 1000 301.9s 258.0s d=2.3 228.0s d=4.6 > ============== ============= =============== =============== This looks fairly reasonable now. Nathan, if I may bother you further, would it be possible to also run 2.3.99.2 on a hashed repository where you ran darcs(-2.3.99.2) optimize --pristine? I think that should cut down the times further, and bring the whatsnew times back into line with 2.3.1. Thanks a lot!
Yours, Petr. PS: At least the record performance is a victim of issue1106. This is something that will be (hopefully) addressed in darcs 2.5. _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
