From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johan Herland Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH v2] fetch: Speed up fetch by rewriting find_non_local_tags Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:13:03 +0200 Message-ID: <200909170913.03639.johan@herland.net> References: <20090916074737.58044.42776.julian@quantumfyre.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano To: Julian Phillips X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Sep 17 09:13:19 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MoBB4-0007am-Dg for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:13:14 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758474AbZIQHNE (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:13:04 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758310AbZIQHNE (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:13:04 -0400 Received: from smtp.getmail.no ([84.208.15.66]:51799 "EHLO get-mta-out01.get.basefarm.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757476AbZIQHND (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:13:03 -0400 Received: from smtp.getmail.no ([10.5.16.4]) by get-mta-out01.get.basefarm.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-0.04 64bit (built Jun 20 2008)) with ESMTP id <0KQ300C70TDSM6A0@get-mta-out01.get.basefarm.net> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:13:04 +0200 (MEST) Received: from alpha.localnet ([84.215.102.95]) by get-mta-in01.get.basefarm.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7.0-0.04 64bit (built Jun 20 2008)) with ESMTP id <0KQ3001CLTDST300@get-mta-in01.get.basefarm.net> for git@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:13:04 +0200 (MEST) X-PMX-Version: 5.5.3.366731, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.0.366912, Antispam-Data: 2009.9.17.70327 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (Linux/2.6.30-ARCH; KDE/4.3.1; x86_64; ; ) In-reply-to: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thursday 17 September 2009, Julian Phillips wrote: > On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Julian Phillips wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Sep 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> I am just curious. How would a "just one item lookbehind" code > >> perform compared to this one? > > > > The code you wrote ealier is almost the same as the string_list > > version, ~ 4.3s, so very marginally slower but a lot less code change. > > Personally I'd be happy with any of the three, so long as I don't have > > to wait 30s to find out that nothing's happened at $dayjob anymore ;) > > FWIW: I've Just modified my v2 patch to make use of the requirement that > the peeled ref immediately follow the base ref, and it's now ~4.1s and > should use less memory than the original too. I won't bother posting it > unless someone thinks it worth it though. It's worth it. :) ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net