Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > > It should get a bit faster if we reduce the number of branches it > > examines, which I assume is something we can do once we desupport 7.4 > > and 8.0. We could also add a --since argument which would doubtless > > speed things up a lot, by truncating the history to, say, the last N > > years. Also, it could possibly be rewritten to be faster still if it > > started N simultaneous copies of git log simultaneously instead of in > > sequence, and processed them incrementally rather than throwing them > > into a giant hash table, which would also probably cut down memory > > usage quite a bit. However, I'm not really inclined to spend a lot of > > time on it unless it's actually bugging Tom. > > FWIW, I would find a --since option useful (since I use the equivalent > option of cvs2cl), but those other refinements don't seem of interest. > 14 seconds is already an order of magnitude or two faster than cvs2cl.
Yes, my operation on a year's worth of logs can take a few minutes. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
