On 3 Jun 2010, at 19:27, Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen wrote: > Some statistics:
…which were wrong. Jelmer was a bit surprised that Subvertpy should be 2x slower than the SWIG bindings, and he was right: I had some debugging code left over which called ‘gc.collect()’ regularly. BDB repository w. Subvertpy: Virtual private memory: 46 MB CPU time: 2m47s FSFS repository w. Subvertpy: Virtual private memory: 415 MB CPU time: 2m48s BDB repository w. SWIG: Virtual private memory: 408 MB CPU time: 3m10s FSFS repository w. SWIG: Virtual private memory: 410 MB CPU time: 3m07s > Based on this I would say that BDB repositories appear to not leak much when > using Subvertpy. Everything else leaks quite a lot. Granted, there is a > significant CPU overhead in Subvertpy, but I believe its much cleaner API and > better memory handling compensate for that. Besides, many people using > hgsubversion will have their conversions I/O bound rather CPU bound. More accurately: There appear to be no downsides to using Subvertpy. -- Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen dan...@gmail.com
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
