On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:40 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:30 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> ...
> > > Why do we still need to go through add_index_entry()? I thought that
> > > the whole point was that you already
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 12:30 PM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
...
> > Why do we still need to go through add_index_entry()? I thought that
> > the whole point was that you already checked that at the current path,
> > the trees being unpacked were all
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:39 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM Duy Nguyen wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:46 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > > @@ -701,6 +702,24 @@ static int traverse_by_cache_tree(int pos, int
> > > > nr_entries, int nr_names,
>
> > > If we're
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:39 AM Duy Nguyen wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:46 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > > @@ -701,6 +702,24 @@ static int traverse_by_cache_tree(int pos, int
> > > nr_entries, int nr_names,
> > If we're going to go this route, I think we should first check that
> > o->fn
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:46 PM Elijah Newren wrote:
> > @@ -701,6 +702,24 @@ static int traverse_by_cache_tree(int pos, int
> > nr_entries, int nr_names,
> > if (!o->merge)
> > BUG("We need cache-tree to do this optimization");
> >
> > + /*
> > +* Try to
On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 3:36 AM Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
>
> With the new cache-tree, we could mostly avoid I/O (due to odb access)
> the code mostly becomes a loop of "check this, check that, add the
> entry to the index". We could skip a couple checks in this giant loop
> to go faster:
>
> -
With the new cache-tree, we could mostly avoid I/O (due to odb access)
the code mostly becomes a loop of "check this, check that, add the
entry to the index". We could skip a couple checks in this giant loop
to go faster:
- We know here that we're copying entries from the source index to the
7 matches
Mail list logo
