Eric Kow <[email protected]> writes: > I just meant if reading the large index file would contribute a > significant amount (say a few seconds) of time to our total wall time in > a large repository (as you say, it's still a net improvement, but I'm > just curious). I was wondering if the future would require us to break > the index up into smaller pieces. But from the sounds of it, we won't > need to be worrying about that, at least not right now. Actually, there's no difference between reading one seven-megabyte file or seven one-megabyte files.
> One more question: where do we get the times that we store in the index > from? My guess is that we get it from the working copy, because getting > it from the pristine would just bring us back to the original problem? Working copy -- these are the only meaningful timestamps around, anyway. The index keeps hashes of the working files and uses the timestamp/filesize combo to keep those up to date. These are then used for fast hash-based subtree/file comparisons. Yours, Petr. -- Peter Rockai | me()mornfall!net | prockai()redhat!com http://blog.mornfall.net | http://web.mornfall.net "In My Egotistical Opinion, most people's C programs should be indented six feet downward and covered with dirt." -- Blair P. Houghton on the subject of C program indentation _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
