On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 02:43:52PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> As noted in
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87bm7clf4o@evledraar.gmail.com/ and
> https://public-inbox.org/git/87h8gq5zmc@evledraar.gmail.com/ I think
> it's regardless of Jeff's optimization is. O(nothing) is
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 11:21:51AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> No, but they don't even really need to be actual objects. So I suspect
> something like:
>
> git init
> for i in $(seq 256); do
> i=$(printf %02x $i)
> mkdir -p .git/objects/$i
> for j in $(seq --format=%038g 1000); do
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 04:18:24PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Heh, indeed. Try this on top:
>
> diff --git a/sha1-file.c b/sha1-file.c
> index bc35b28e17..9ff27f92ed 100644
> --- a/sha1-file.c
> +++ b/sha1-file.c
> @@ -692,6 +692,7 @@ void prepare_alt_odb(struct repository *r)
>
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 07:02:57AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> Yes, testing and review. :)
>
> I won't send the series out just yet, as I suspect it could use another
> read-through on my part. But if you want to peek at it or try some
> timings, it's available at:
>
>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 07:27:39PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 08:36:07PM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> > * Re-roll my 4 patch series to include the patch you have in
> ><20181027093300.ga23...@sigill.intra.peff.net>
>
> I don't think it's quite ready for
On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 10:50:19PM +, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
> I left the door open for that in the new config option 4/4 implements,
> but I suspect for Geert's purposes this is something he'd prefer to
> turn off in git on clone entirely, i.e. because it may be running on
> some
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 05:50:50PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > I believe the loose-object-cache approach would have a performance
> > regression
> > when you're receiving a small pack file and there's many loose objects in
> > the
> > repo. Basically you're trading off
> >
> > MIN(256,
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 09:48:02AM +0900, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> A real question is how much performance gain, relative to ".cloning"
> thing, this approach gives us. If it gives us 80% or more of the
> gain compared to doing no checking, I'd say we have a clear winner.
I've tested Jeff's
8 matches
Mail list logo
