On 11/1/2018 2:52 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:05 AM Derrick Stolee <sto...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 2:04 AM, Elijah Newren wrote:
On the original repo where the topic was brought up, with commit-graph
NOT turned on and using origin/master, I see:
$ time git push --dry-run --follow-tags /home/newren/repo-mirror
To /home/newren/repo-mirror
* [new branch] test5 -> test5
real 1m20.081s
user 1m19.688s
sys 0m0.292s
Merging this series in, I now get:
$ time git push --dry-run --follow-tags /home/newren/repo-mirror
To /home/newren/repo-mirror
* [new branch] test5 -> test5
real 0m2.857s
user 0m2.580s
sys 0m0.328s
which provides a very nice speedup.
Oddly enough, if I _also_ do the following:
$ git config core.commitgraph true
$ git config gc.writecommitgraph true
$ git gc
then my timing actually slows down just slightly:
$ time git push --follow-tags --dry-run /home/newren/repo-mirror
To /home/newren/repo-mirror
* [new branch] test5 -> test5
real 0m3.027s
user 0m2.696s
sys 0m0.400s
So you say that the commit-graph is off in the 2.8s case, but not here
in the 3.1s case? I would expect _at minimum_ that the cost of parsing
commits would have a speedup in the commit-graph case. There may be
something else going on here, since you are timing a `push` event that
is doing more than the current walk.
(run-to-run variation seems pretty consistent, < .1s variation, so
this difference is just enough to notice.) I wouldn't be that
surprised if that means there's some really old tags with very small
generation numbers, meaning it's not gaining anything in this special
case from the commit-graph, but it does pay the cost of loading the
commit-graph.
While you have this test environment, do you mind applying the diff
below and re-running the tests? It will output a count for how many
commits are walked by the algorithm. This should help us determine if
this is another case where generation numbers are worse than commit-date,
or if there is something else going on. Thanks!
I can do that, but wouldn't you want a similar patch for the old
get_merge_bases_many() in order to compare? Does an absolute number
help by itself?
It's going to have to be tomorrow, though; not enough time tonight.
No rush. I'd just like to understand how removing the commit-graph file
can make the new algorithm faster. Putting a similar count in the old
algorithm would involve giving a count for every call to
in_merge_bases_many(), which would be very noisy.
Thanks!
-Stolee
