Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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. > > I'm pretty sure that with such an option, you'd be down to sub-second speed.
I assumed you would say git would produce the results before we asked for them. ;-) -- 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
