On 11/27/17, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 02:28:37PM -0500, Richard Hipp wrote: >> TL;DR: A Git packfile for SQLite is about 52% larger than the >> equivalent content in a Fossil repository. > > Did you run repack with aggresive settings? I.e. with -A -d -f and large > --depth and --window-size settings? Especially if the original migration > wasn't done well, the pack files are often quite redundant. > > Your numbers really don't match my experience, i.e. what I see is about > a factor of 2 to 2.5 larger Fossil repos. >
2x larger for Fossil is about what I would expect too. The Git file formats are crazy-aggressive at avoiding any wasted bytes (thus making them hard to parse and use and especially hard to extend for things like SHA3). I didn't try any repacking. I merely ran "git clone" then looked at the packfile in .git/objects/pack. You would think that the server would want to do an aggressive repack before sending the packfile across a clone, to save bandwidth. But maybe GitHub values CPU cycles more than bandwidth... Your git-foo is much greater than mine, Joerg. Can you please clone https://github.com/mackyle/sqlite.git and see if you can get the packfile to come out smaller? -- 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
