From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02CFC433F5 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 23:13:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232315AbiCUXPF (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:15:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:60864 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232426AbiCUXOY (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Mar 2022 19:14:24 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79737404249 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c15so21853111ljr.9 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:03:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=G2WJLxrI9QhhjwhJMmMwUFCYR8S1sO0VCfKz+5gpxTg=; b=QHbSU3PZYQ577DCuOct0fr1iJvEXbi/pCDvRHvI7Q88WNqaHjBtJZq05zm+H5ol9xY PhzqKjtPZ2dQD0l9MW8LptC5XS7+xdZZd0Pky28GoxTZ/PbIqdIuyWqHgrerJaqn41f/ TKlciO7IpksMW+nHykzYFVCEUyZtJMnuF4I17NQYI63kRXtHfZmF6KjBbZn+KKXS/Mxo wwxyondqOaoUzvlGJVUcqJ7ndcaFDSzvoz7UiR8fqVOHgkI/clWxds3kxB/1/25NJK8t Y27uVnqgVmedLBXwnYJGvHZBfys6KOX8ytj3htJFwreAV7uqg4fwNWH3BDqU4Noav69z a/7g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=G2WJLxrI9QhhjwhJMmMwUFCYR8S1sO0VCfKz+5gpxTg=; b=XHzGQ/9BaUUABM3NiCzpiXAL8smzl/UEkVcHcxByoGoXAvMuWZEBNI1yL4xB8QInX2 7E5/PRRKShjBr/yKEEdbD/PMWOedWaOiUfRvY5YX1h9A2+os1WcEiRs+cdTHmGqJgqgH wkoc0vMcaKYIrs+Ner4Yj5rWZpb3n4ANfD0/huX2AN+kg0MMMiT159adpGlTL0dYQLYG aXg6MK1q3wkMH9dFFlmwpFqYrajYp1JaZ1peKGCOhe3XUP5nqmcOIuGBASbG6j0TBPuv kX5itjaDm0eE1cajqPR4jDVChPlXKilhhED6T+wvLaMxvIEzs/y7D1FAK2WBtHpLlXzO 1B/g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532S5SYl4IRNFPyI+4qhtAPGO/nD3mheP6bcqf0F9wIRyxlT1Y98 GaXKmsSnnhF7dMIn1HBlR1L4RGz9aXOGqykLiPw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcUBmrcfVMi3PI3NWQkT4A7r+4GnjATgkJjB5mkij7A/uim4oWY8jwIYo4COXiAFA5uvaeEyAV1GPuQhv4M2Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:241:b0:23e:42c1:2e4 with SMTP id x1-20020a05651c024100b0023e42c102e4mr17392300ljn.406.1647903752095; Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6662e2dae0f5d65c158fba785d186885f9671073.1647760561.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Neeraj Singh Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2022 16:02:20 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] unpack-objects: use the bulk-checkin infrastructure To: Junio C Hamano Cc: Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget , Git List , Johannes Schindelin , =?UTF-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsCBCamFybWFzb24=?= , Patrick Steinhardt , Bagas Sanjaya , "Neeraj K. Singh" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:55 AM Junio C Hamano wrote: > > "Neeraj Singh via GitGitGadget" writes: > > > From: Neeraj Singh > > > > The unpack-objects functionality is used by fetch, push, and fast-import > > to turn the transfered data into object database entries when there are > > fewer objects than the 'unpacklimit' setting. > > > > By enabling bulk-checkin when unpacking objects, we can take advantage > > of batched fsyncs. > > This feels confused in that we dispatch to unpack-objects (instead > of index-objects) only when the number of loose objects should not > matter from performance point of view, and bulk-checkin should shine > from performance point of view only when there are enough objects to > batch. > > Also if we ever add "too many small loose objects is wasteful, let's > send them into a single 'batch pack'" optimization, it would create > a funny situation where the caller sends the contents of a small > incoming packfile to unpack-objects, but the command chooses to > bunch them all together in a packfile anyway ;-) > > So, I dunno. > I'd be happy to just drop this patch. I originally added it to answer Avarab's question: how does batch mode compare to packfiles? [1] [2]. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/87mtp5cwpn.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/git/pull.1076.v5.git.git.1632514331.gitgitgadget@gmail.com/