From: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges.
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:24:41 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061228082441.GB18029@spearce.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vejqkxx1s.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
>
> > For a really trivial merge which can be handled entirely by
> > `read-tree -m -u`, skipping the read-tree and just going directly
> > into merge-recursive saves on average 50 ms on my PowerPC G4 system.
> > May sound odd, but it does appear to be true.
>
> This sounds awfully attractive yet disruptive. Should be cooked
> in 'next' for at least two weeks, maybe even longer to verify
> that performance figure holds for everybody.
I agree. I have been thinking about doing this for a while but
just never sat down and did it until night. To get it in 1.5.0 I
probably should have done this back in early Decmember. Whoops,
bad timing on my part. ;-)
> Also I think you need to make sure running merge-recursive
> upfront offers the same safety as the code you are removing then
> running it, as I vaguely recall its checking for local changes
> were slightly looser.
>From what I can tell, merge-recursive and read-tree -m are running
exactly the same code. So aside from the fact that I bypassed the
update-index --refresh by accident, I don't think they will have
different outcomes.
--
Shawn.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-28 8:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <9847899e4ba836980dbfed6d0ea1c82f31f21456.1167290864.git.spearce@spearce.org>
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 2/11] Honor GIT_REFLOG_ACTION in git-rebase Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:34 ` [PATCH 3/11] Use branch names in 'git-rebase -m' conflict hunks Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 4/11] Ensure `git-pull` fails if `git-merge` fails Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 5/11] Honor pull.{twohead,octopus} in git-merge Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 6/11] Allow git-merge to select the default strategy Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 7/11] Avoid git-fetch in `git-pull .` when possible Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:17 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-28 9:35 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 8/11] Move better_branch_name above get_ref in merge-recursive Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 9/11] Allow merging bare trees " Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 10/11] Use merge-recursive in git-am -3 Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 7:35 ` [PATCH 11/11] Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges Shawn O. Pearce
2006-12-28 8:08 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-12-28 8:24 ` Shawn Pearce [this message]
2006-12-29 17:44 ` Johannes Schindelin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20061228082441.GB18029@spearce.org \
--to=spearce@spearce.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.