Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff Hostetler writes: > Sorry, $DAYJOB got in the way (again). > > This is still on my short-list of things to take care of. > I should have something for you next week. That's perfectly OK. I just wanted a newer articule in my newsreader I can bookmark so that

RE: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Sorry, $DAYJOB got in the way (again). This is still on my short-list of things to take care of. I should have something for you next week. Thanks again, Jeff -Original Message- From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:gits...@pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2017 4:12 PM To: Jeff Hostetler

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff Hostetler writes: > On 2/14/2017 5:03 PM, Jeff King wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >>> On Windows, calls to memihash() and maintaining the istate.name_hash and >>> istate.dir_hash HashMaps take significant time on

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff Hostetler writes: >> But the other Jeff sounded like a follow-up was to follow shortly if >> not imminent so I decided to allocate my time on other topics still >> only on the list first while waiting to see what happens. > > Sorry, I was out of the office for

RE: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

From: Junio C Hamano [mailto:jch2...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Junio C Hamano > Jeff King writes: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote: >> >>> I have some informal numbers in a spreadsheet. I was seeing >>> a 8-9% speed up on a status on my gigantic

RE: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

> Jeff King writes: > >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >>> Jeff Hostetler writes: >>> >>> > I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better >>> > demonstrate this. >>> >>> I didn't pick up the series while

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff King writes: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Jeff Hostetler writes: >> >> > I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better >> > demonstrate this. >> >> I didn't pick up the series while watching

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff Hostetler writes: > > > I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better > > demonstrate this. > > I didn't pick up the series while watching these exchanges, as I > didn't know how quick

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff Hostetler writes: > I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better > demonstrate this. I didn't pick up the series while watching these exchanges, as I didn't know how quick your turnaround would be, but now a few days have passed. Just to make sure we

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

Jeff King writes: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > >> I have some informal numbers in a spreadsheet. I was seeing >> a 8-9% speed up on a status on my gigantic repo. >> >> I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better >>

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:27:53AM -0500, Jeff Hostetler wrote: > I have some informal numbers in a spreadsheet. I was seeing > a 8-9% speed up on a status on my gigantic repo. > > I'll try to put together a before/after perf-test to better > demonstrate this. Thanks. What I'm mostly curious

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

On 2/14/2017 5:03 PM, Jeff King wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: On Windows, calls to memihash() and maintaining the istate.name_hash and istate.dir_hash HashMaps take significant time on very large repositories. This series of changes reduces the

Re: [PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 12:31:46PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > On Windows, calls to memihash() and maintaining the istate.name_hash and > istate.dir_hash HashMaps take significant time on very large > repositories. This series of changes reduces the overall time taken for > various

[PATCH 0/5] A series of performance enhancements in the memihash and name-cache area

On Windows, calls to memihash() and maintaining the istate.name_hash and istate.dir_hash HashMaps take significant time on very large repositories. This series of changes reduces the overall time taken for various operations by reducing the number calls to memihash(), moving some of them into