Jason Dagit <aoeu> added the comment: Some preliminary numbers from a clean run:
darcs-unmodified get (full) [darcs]: ...!..!..!.. ?13.5s (1.2s) 10.0M 3x darcs-unmodified get (lazy) [darcs]: !..!..!..!..!..!..!.. ~1933.7ms (141.5ms) 3.0M 6x darcs-unmodified pull 100 [darcs]: !....................... ~1497.4ms (43.7ms) 8.0M 7x darcs-unmodified pull 1000 [darcs]: ............ ?11.1s (1.5s) 33.0M 3x darcs-unmodified check [darcs]: ............ ?14.5s (0.0s) 23.0M 3x darcs-unmodified repair [darcs]: ............ ?14.5s (0.0s) 24.0M 3x darcs-unmodified annotate [darcs]: ............ ?9.1s (0.7s) 194.0M 3x darcs-refactoredparser2 get (full) [darcs]: ...!..!..!.. ?12.9s (0.5s) 9.0M 3x darcs-refactoredparser2 get (lazy) [darcs]: !..!..!..!..!..!..!.. ~1878.5ms (19.7ms) 3.0M 6x darcs-refactoredparser2 pull 100 [darcs]: !....................... ~1491.8ms (2.4ms) 6.0M 7x darcs-refactoredparser2 pull 1000 [darcs]: ............ ?10.0s (0.0s) 35.0M 3x darcs-refactoredparser2 check [darcs]: ............ ?15.8s (0.4s) 22.3M 3x Either my previous benchmarks were just wrong or my new optimizations have brought the times back down. I'll continue testing and benchmarking before I submit new patches, but it looks like any performance problems are fixable before the next stable release. __________________________________ Darcs bug tracker <b...@darcs.net> <http://bugs.darcs.net/patch318> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list darcs-users@darcs.net http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
