Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-17 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > Philip Martin writes: > >> Update with no changes on NFS disk: >> >> 1.6: 2s >> 1.7: 50s > > With the recent bump-post-update changes that 50s has become 23s. With the recent report-revisions per-dir changes that 23s has become 7.5s. -- Philip

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-15 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > Update with no changes on NFS disk: > > 1.6: 2s > 1.7: 50s With the recent bump-post-update changes that 50s has become 23s. -- Philip

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-14 Thread Philip Martin
Mark Phippard writes: > I think it should be faster overall. Like Ivan, I think status and > update on large working copies are areas where I would like to see > show significant improvements. > > I can live with some operations being comparable to 1.6. I do not > think we can accept any major

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Branko Čibej
On 12.03.2011 19:41, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz > wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >>> I think we have to get this work done soon. We cannot release with >>> performance like it is. How do we define the scope of the

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Mark Phippard
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with >> performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that >> needs to be done so that we can divi

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Ivan Zhakov
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 20:49, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: >> I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with >> performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that >> needs to be done so that we can divide

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > I think we have to get this work done soon.  We cannot release with > performance like it is.  How do we define the scope of the work that > needs to be done so that we can divide and conquer and get these > changes in place? It sounds like

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-12 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 02:13:05PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote: > On IRC, there was a discussion about the wc_db API. In particular > whether to have lots of query functions, or to have the caller sort it > out. As Bert noted, my original intent was to provide the caller with > enough information and l

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-11 Thread Mark Phippard
2011/3/11 Branko Čibej : > On 11.03.2011 20:13, Greg Stein wrote: >> I also don't like to see structures like svn_wc__db_info_t. We had a >> big problem with the entry_t, and things like info_t will continue to >> propagate that broken model. By definition, to use that structure a >> query must be

Re: wc_db API discussion

2011-03-11 Thread Branko Čibej
On 11.03.2011 20:13, Greg Stein wrote: > I also don't like to see structures like svn_wc__db_info_t. We had a > big problem with the entry_t, and things like info_t will continue to > propagate that broken model. By definition, to use that structure a > query must be done against both NODES and ACT