Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-25 Thread Thomas Rast
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes: Junio's index-v4 was a speed boost mainly because it cuts down on the size of the index. Do we want to throw that out? That's pretty much orthogonal, isn't it? The index-v4 is merely to show how a stupid

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-24 Thread Thomas Rast
Robin Rosenberg robin.rosenb...@dewire.com writes: Junio C Hamano skrev 2012-07-22 23.08: Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes: What is the status quo? I take it JGit does not have any of ctime, dev, ino etc., and either leaves the existing value or puts a 0 an argument in favor of

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-24 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes: Junio's index-v4 was a speed boost mainly because it cuts down on the size of the index. Do we want to throw that out? That's pretty much orthogonal, isn't it? The index-v4 is merely to show how a stupid prefix compression of pathnames without

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-23 Thread Robin Rosenberg
Junio C Hamano skrev 2012-07-22 23.08: Thomas Rast tr...@student.ethz.ch writes: Hum, I'm a bit lost now. What is the status quo? I take it JGit does not have any of ctime, dev, ino etc., and either leaves the existing value or puts a 0 an argument in favor of splitting stat_crc into its

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-22 Thread Robin Rosenberg
A note on how JGit would work here. Java has none of the fields that constitute statcrc. I guess we would write zero here when creating new entries. Git could recognize that when checking status and simply assume clean unless mtime or st_size says otherwise. For existing entries JGit could

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Gummerer
On 07/16, Junio C Hamano wrote: Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com writes: == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory entries and file entries, to

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-17 Thread Thomas Gummerer
Thanks Junio for reading the progress report, this is just corrected version without the errors that he pointed out. == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory

[GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-16 Thread Thomas Gummerer
== Work done in the previous 12 weeks == - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory entries and file entries, to do a binary search. The exact bits for each section were also defined. To further compress

Re: [GSoC] Designing a faster index format - Progress report week 13

2012-07-16 Thread Junio C Hamano
Thomas Gummerer t.gumme...@gmail.com writes: == Work done in the previous 12 weeks == - Definition of a tentative index file v5 format [1]. This differs from the proposal in making it possible to bisect the directory entries and file entries, to do a binary search. The exact bits for