On 11/27/17, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > TL;DR: A Git packfile for SQLite is about 52% larger than the > equivalent content in a Fossil repository.
It gets worse (for Git): The Git repo I cloned only contains the master branch - 18336 check-ins out of the 19715 check-ins found in the Fossil repo. > > I downloaded a copy of the Git packfile from mackyle's mirror of > SQLite on GitHub (https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite). Git uses a > tightly coded binary implementation for packfiles, so I was expecting > that a Git packfile would be significantly smaller than the equivalent > Fossil repo. > > I was wrong. > > The Git packfile comes in a 86.8MB and the entire Fossil repo is only > 68.8MB. This is in spite of the fact that the Fossil repo contains a > lot of supplemental information (ex: indexes) used to make it faster > as well as additional content (wiki, tickets) that Git does not > support. > > The equivalent of a Git packfile in Fossil would be the contents of > the BLOB and DELTA tables without the UNIQUE index on the BLOB.UUID > field. Comparing the packfile against just the unindexed BLOB table > and the DELTA table, I find that the packfile is 52% larger. > > Git packfile: 86.8MB > Fossil content tables: 57.1MB > > I do not know why this is. I have put almost no effort toward > optimizing Fossil repositories for size, whereas metrics like > performance and size seem to be driving forces behind Git. > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
