On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:18:44PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
The read penalty is not addressed here, so I still pay 14MB hashing
cost. But that's an easy problem. We could cache the validated index
in a daemon. Whenever git needs to load an index, it pokes the daemon.
The daemon verifies
Duy Nguyen pclo...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 02:18:44PM -0700, Shawn Pearce wrote:
The read penalty is not addressed here, so I still pay 14MB hashing
cost. But that's an easy problem. We could cache the validated index
in a daemon. Whenever git needs to load an index, it
On 2014-04-28 06:55, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
From the user point of view, this reduces the writable size of index
down to the number of updated files. For example my webkit index v4 is
14MB. With a fresh split, I only have to update an index of 200KB.
Every file I touch will add about 80
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 04:48:05PM -0400, Richard Hansen wrote:
I played around with these changes a bit and have some questions:
* These changes should only affect performance when the index is
updated, right? In other words, if I do git status; git status
the second git status
I hinted about it earlier [1]. It now passes the test suite and with a
design that I'm happy with (thanks to Junio for a suggestion about the
rename problem).
From the user point of view, this reduces the writable size of index
down to the number of updated files. For example my webkit index v4
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com wrote:
I hinted about it earlier [1]. It now passes the test suite and with a
design that I'm happy with (thanks to Junio for a suggestion about the
rename problem).
From the user point of view, this reduces the writable
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com writes:
The read penalty is not addressed here, so I still pay 14MB hashing
cost.
Hmm, yeah, the cost for verify_hdr() would still matter, and
presumably you would be hashing the additional 200kB to validate the
smaller changes since the base file to
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Shawn Pearce spea...@spearce.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy pclo...@gmail.com
wrote:
I hinted about it earlier [1]. It now passes the test suite and with a
design that I'm happy with (thanks to Junio for a suggestion about the
8 matches
Mail list logo