Re: [BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-12 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 07:22:59PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: >> > > > Maybe we could make an exception and allow the tree walker to pass >> > > > pv4_tree_cache* directly to decode_entries so it does

Re: [BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-12 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013, Duy Nguyen wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 07:22:59PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > > Maybe we could make an exception and allow the tree walker to pass > > > > pv4_tree_cache* directly to decode_entries so it does not need to do > > > > the first lookup every time.. > > > >

Re: [BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-11 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 07:22:59PM +0700, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > > Maybe we could make an exception and allow the tree walker to pass > > > pv4_tree_cache* directly to decode_entries so it does not need to do > > > the first lookup every time.. > > > > > > Suggestions? Looking at decode_entries()

Re: [BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-11 Thread Duy Nguyen
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 12:51:26PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Now let's mitigate the deep delta chaining effect in the tree encoding: > > $ rm .git/objects/pack/pack-foo.* > $ ../../git/test-packv4 --min-tree-copy=50 orig/pack-*.pack > .git/objects/pack/pack-foo.pack > Scanning objects: 100% (

Re: [BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-09 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote: > I know I still have a lot of holes to plug, but this was more > interesting because we could see some encouraging numbers. > Unfortunately the result is disappointing. Maybe I did it in a stupid > way and need to restart with a totally different wa

[BAD PATCH 0/9] v4-aware tree walker API

2013-10-09 Thread Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
I know I still have a lot of holes to plug, but this was more interesting because we could see some encouraging numbers. Unfortunately the result is disappointing. Maybe I did it in a stupid way and need to restart with a totally different way. "rev-list --objects" on v2 takes 4 secs, v4 with curr