And here is the final comparison using an nfs mounted working copy. This is where the difference gets really bad.
1.6.17 -> time /file_access/subversion/1.6.17/bin/svn info --depth infinity > /dev/null real 0m2.548s user 0m0.350s sys 0m0.142s 1.7.0-rc2 -> time svn info --depth infinity > /dev/null real 6m51.036s user 0m13.947s sys 0m10.880s -Mike -----Original Message----- From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com] Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 10:26 AM To: RYTTING,MICHAEL (A-ColSprings,ex1) Cc: d...@daniel.shahaf.name; dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Really lousy performance with svn info --depth infinity <michael_rytt...@agilent.com> writes: > And here is the comparsion of 1.6.17 vs 1.7.0-rc2. This test was run > on a locally mounted drive, it gets significantly worse on an nfs > mounted drive. > > 1.6.17 > > -> time /file_access/subversion/1.6.17/bin/svn info --depth infinity > > -> /dev/null > > real 0m0.225s > user 0m0.204s > sys 0m0.016s > > 1.7.0-rc2 > > -> time svn info --depth infinity > /dev/null > > real 0m7.741s > user 0m6.571s > sys 0m1.155s The recursive "svn info" still does multiple sqlite transactions per-node, that probably explains why it is slower than 1.6. It's doesn't really explain why the single recursive call is slower than multiple non-recursive calls, since each non-recursive call also makes several sqlite transactions. At first glance the difference between recursive and non-recursive is node.c:walker_helper. Is STMT_SELECT_NODE_CHILDREN_WALKER_INFO missing an index? -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com
