Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> writes:

> -     /* Find common prefix for all pathspec's */
> -     max_prefix = common_prefix(&pathspec);
> +     /*
> +      * Find common prefix for all pathspec's
> +      * This is used as a performance optimization which unfortunately cannot
> +      * be done when recursing into submodules
> +      */
> +     if (recurse_submodules)
> +             max_prefix = NULL;
> +     else
> +             max_prefix = common_prefix(&pathspec);
>       max_prefix_len = max_prefix ? strlen(max_prefix) : 0;

I still wonder if we can do better than this, as this would be a big
cycle-saver especially in recurse-submodules case.

When you get max_prefix that is "a/b/c", there are three cases:

 * a/b/c is a path prefix for an entry in the index, e.g. a/b/c/d;
   you then can safely use it and you do not have to do any
   recursive invocation of ls-files outside "a/b/c".  You may match
   a/b/c/d in the toplevel, or you may recurse a/b/c/e that is a
   submodule, but you won't have to pay attention to submodules
   outside.

 * a leading path of a/b/c, e.g. a/b, is a gitlink or a blob in the
   index; you can use a/b and you only have to recurse into a/b if
   that is a submodule; if a/b is a blob, you'd show nothing.

 * a/b/c itself and no leading path of it appears in the index; you
   know that nothing will match once you know that you are in this
   situation.

Because a gitlink "a/b" sorts at the same location in the index as a
regular blob "a/b" would, by feeding the max_prefix common_prefix()
gives you (i.e. "a/b/c") to index_name_pos() to see which one of the
three situations you are in can be done fairly cheaply, I would
think.  The index_name_pos() call may find "a/b/c" exactly (case 1),
or return a location where "a/b/c" would be inserted in the list of
existing entries.  If there were "a/b" (or "a") in the index, there
wouldn't be any "a/b/x" (or "a/x") at the same time, so a query for
"a/b/c" would land you next to (just after) an existing entry that
is a leading path of it, if such an entry exists, no?  That would
allow you to tell case 2 above fairly cheaply, I would expect.

It is a separate issue if adding that support to 4/4 is a good idea;
I personally think doing it as a separate follow-up patch would make
more sense, so all of the above is tangent.

Reply via email to