On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 18:48, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> OK, try this. It takes about 14 seconds on my machine on my copy of >>> Magnus's test repository. Output looks like this: >> >> 14 seconds! That sound much too slow :-) > > /me is very sorry master. Please beat your unworthy servant only > lightly... or alternatively, buy me a faster machine. > > It should get a bit faster if we reduce the number of branches it > examines, which I assume is something we can do once we desupport 7.4 > and 8.0. We could also add a --since argument which would doubtless > speed things up a lot, by truncating the history to, say, the last N > years. Also, it could possibly be rewritten to be faster still if it > started N simultaneous copies of git log simultaneously instead of in > sequence, and processed them incrementally rather than throwing them > into a giant hash table, which would also probably cut down memory > usage quite a bit. However, I'm not really inclined to spend a lot of > time on it unless it's actually bugging Tom. > > Despite the fact that I wrote this basically in response to Tom's > complaint, I do think that it's generally useful, and will likely use > it myself from time to time. So I think we should consider checking > it into src/tools. Perhaps someone will feel an urge to hack on it > further. Another useful enhancement would be to allow it to run on
+1 for putting this in src/tools. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
