On 2014-01-13 08:27:34 +0000, Markus Schaber wrote: > > On 2014-01-13 03:51:08 +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > > > On 13.01.2014 03:43, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > > I meant deltas like in the repository (but see below). > > > > > > When you say "delta" you have to also define "against what". Otherwise > > > it's just a not very efficient compression algorithm. > > > > Against another pristine. Then there are several ways to do that, just like > > BDB and FSFS used different methods for the repository. > > But any of them would be more memory efficient than no deltas at all (like > > currently). > > But the need to do delta decompression on each "svn status" will cost a lot > of i/o and CPU.
Not if the base revisions are stored like now (so, it shouldn't be exactly like FSFS, perhaps more like BDB or some mix, or something like what distributed SCM's do...). Some new test on another working copy (before and after clean-up): xvii:~> du -ks wd/.svn/pristine wd.new/.svn/pristine 4434616 wd/.svn/pristine 468884 wd.new/.svn/pristine And the corresponding repository size: 1477764 So, here, the total size of pristine copies is more than 9 times the size taken after a cleanup, and 3 times the total size of the repository. > I'd welcome an option in SVN to cache the repository. (TortoiseSVN > already has some caching for the log, IIRC). Yes, caching the log would really be useful. I do a lot "svn log". > But then, the cache should not be per-wc, but in a system (or user) > global directory, or we will end up with several copies of the same > repository on the machine. Yes. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[email protected]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
