Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On 6/6/2018 4:13 AM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Mon, Jan 08 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote: On 1/7/2018 5:42 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: git log --oneline --raw --parents Num Packs | Before MIDX | After MIDX | Rel % | 1 pack %

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 1/7/2018 5:42 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: >> >>> git log --oneline --raw --parents >>> >>> Num Packs | Before MIDX | After MIDX | Rel % | 1 pack % >>>

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 02:39:13 PM Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 1/10/2018 1:25 PM, Martin Fick wrote: > > On Sunday, January 07, 2018 01:14:41 PM Derrick Stolee > > > > wrote: > >> This RFC includes a new way to index the objects in > >> multiple packs using one file, called the multi-pack

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On 1/10/2018 1:25 PM, Martin Fick wrote: On Sunday, January 07, 2018 01:14:41 PM Derrick Stolee wrote: This RFC includes a new way to index the objects in multiple packs using one file, called the multi-pack index (MIDX). ... The main goals of this RFC are: * Determine interest in this

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Sunday, January 07, 2018 01:14:41 PM Derrick Stolee wrote: > This RFC includes a new way to index the objects in > multiple packs using one file, called the multi-pack > index (MIDX). ... > The main goals of this RFC are: > > * Determine interest in this feature. > > * Find other use cases

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

Hi Stefan, On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Stefan Beller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Johannes Schindelin > wrote: > > > Just to throw this out there: --abbrev=8! would be one possible > > convention to state "I want exactly 8 hex digits, don't bother > > checking

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 02:05:09PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > I think that could be easily worked around for rebase by asking git to > > check ambiguity during the conversion. > > Sure. > > It also points to a flaw in your reasoning, and you should take my example > further:

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

Stefan Beller writes: > Johannes wrote: >> I think a better alternative would be to introduce a new abbreviation mode >> that is *intended* to stop caring about unique abbreviations. >> >> In web interfaces, for example, it makes tons of sense to show, say, 8 >> digits in

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 12:12 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Stefan Beller writes: > >> And in that light, I'd like to propose a new naming scheme: >> >> (a) assume that we "tag" HEAD at the start of the rebase >> (b) any abbreviation must be given as

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

Stefan Beller writes: > And in that light, I'd like to propose a new naming scheme: > > (a) assume that we "tag" HEAD at the start of the rebase > (b) any abbreviation must be given as committish anchored to said ref: > > pick REBASE_HEAD~1 commit subject > pick REBASE_HEAD~2

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 5:05 AM, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi Peff, > > On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:43:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> >> > Take the interactive rebase for example. It generates todo lists with >> >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

Hi Peff, On Tue, 9 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:43:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > Take the interactive rebase for example. It generates todo lists with > > abbreviated commit names, for readability (and it is *really* important to > > keep this

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 08:43:44AM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > Just to make sure I'm parsing this correctly: normal lookups do get faster > > when you have a single index, given the right setup? > > > > I'm curious what that setup looked like. Is it just tons and tons of > > packs? Is it

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 02:43:00PM +0100, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Take the interactive rebase for example. It generates todo lists with > abbreviated commit names, for readability (and it is *really* important to > keep this readable). As we expect new objects to be introduced by the >

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On 1/8/2018 5:20 AM, Jeff King wrote: On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: (Not a critique of this, just a (stupid) question) What's the practical use-case for this feature? Since it doesn't help with --abbrev=40 the speedup is all in the part that ensures we don't

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

Hi Peff, On Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > > > (Not a critique of this, just a (stupid) question) > > > > > > What's the practical use-case for this feature? Since it doesn't > > > help with --abbrev=40 the speedup is all

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08 2018, Jeff King jotted: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:20:29AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > >> I.e., what if we did something like this: >> >> diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c >> index 611c7d24dd..04c661ba85 100644 >> --- a/sha1_name.c >> +++ b/sha1_name.c >> @@ -600,6 +600,15 @@

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: > On 1/7/2018 5:42 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> If something cares about both throughput and e.g. is saving the >> abbreviated SHA-1s isn't it better off picking some arbitrary size >> (e.g. --abbrev=20), after all the default abbreviation is

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 05:20:29AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > I.e., what if we did something like this: > > diff --git a/sha1_name.c b/sha1_name.c > index 611c7d24dd..04c661ba85 100644 > --- a/sha1_name.c > +++ b/sha1_name.c > @@ -600,6 +600,15 @@ int find_unique_abbrev_r(char *hex, const

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 07:08:54PM -0500, Derrick Stolee wrote: > > (Not a critique of this, just a (stupid) question) > > > > What's the practical use-case for this feature? Since it doesn't help > > with --abbrev=40 the speedup is all in the part that ensures we don't > > show an ambiguous

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On 1/7/2018 5:42 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: git log --oneline --raw --parents Num Packs | Before MIDX | After MIDX | Rel % | 1 pack % --+-+++-- 1 | 35.64 s |35.28 s |

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: > git log --oneline --raw --parents > > Num Packs | Before MIDX | After MIDX | Rel % | 1 pack % > --+-+++-- > 1 | 35.64 s |35.28 s | -1.0% | -1.0% >24 | 90.81 s |

[RFC PATCH 00/18] Multi-pack index (MIDX)

This RFC includes a new way to index the objects in multiple packs using one file, called the multi-pack index (MIDX). The commits are split into parts as follows: [01] - A full design document. [02] - The full file format for MIDX files. [03] - Creation of core.midx config setting. [04-12] -