From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics) Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:01:16 -0700 Message-ID: <7vsl4up0tf.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7v1wdcch06.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7v1wd1d0le.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <7vfy11yyxk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <20070927023633.GA28902@coredump.intra.peff.net> <20071002041652.GA32133@coredump.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeff King X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 02 07:01:31 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IcZsx-0003h8-45 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:01:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750898AbXJBFBX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:01:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750803AbXJBFBX (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:01:23 -0400 Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]:38328 "EHLO rune.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750793AbXJBFBW (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:01:22 -0400 Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FAD13FC9D; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:01:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907EE13FC10; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 01:01:40 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20071002041652.GA32133@coredump.intra.peff.net> (Jeff King's message of "Tue, 2 Oct 2007 00:16:52 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeff King writes: > Just to update, I tried using a non-colliding hash for this (at the > expense of much memory), and I wasn't able to get things much faster > (and certainly not worth the explosion in memory), short of reducing the > size of the hash (which is going to reduce the quality of the output). > So I am giving up for the time being, but if others are interested in > trying to speed things up, I would be happy to discuss ideas. Bummer. You are giving up at the same place I gave up the last time. I was somehow hoping that other people are more clever and determined than I was ;-). Thanks for trying.