Re: 1.3.0 creating bigger packs than 1.2.3

[Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>]

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Shawn Pearce wrote:
> 
> > Based on Linus' comment I changed your patch to just the following.
> > It still produced the 46M pack file, so the first hunk apears to
> > not have had much of an affect with this data.
> > 
> > From a running time perspective it appears as though this patch is
> > making things slightly better, not worse.  I ran it a few times
> > for each case always using the 46M pack as input for
> >  "git-repack -a -d -f".
> > 
> >   'next'       137.13 real        95.82 user        25.24 sys
> >   'next'+patch 131.62 real        89.35 user        28.56 sys
> > 
> > but even if the running time was an extra 6 seconds I'd still rather
> > spend 4% more running time to use 1/2 the storage space.
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/pack-objects.c b/pack-objects.c
> > index 09f4f2c..f7d6217 100644
> > --- a/pack-objects.c
> > +++ b/pack-objects.c
> > @@ -1052,7 +1052,7 @@ static int try_delta(struct unpacked *cu
> >         if (cur_entry->delta)
> >                 max_size = cur_entry->delta_size-1;
> >         if (sizediff >= max_size)
> > -               return -1;
> > +               return 0;
> >         delta_buf = diff_delta(old->data, oldsize,
> >                                cur->data, size, &delta_size, max_size);
> >         if (!delta_buf)
> 
> I can confirm this is indeed the best fix so far.  Any "smarter" 
> solution I could think of did increase the size of the final pack quite 
> spectacularly and rather unexpectedly with Shawn's repository.

Wow.  I'm such a trouble maker.  *grin*
 
> Of course removing the if (sizediff >= max_size) entirely does produce a 
> smaller pack (39MB) but it takes about twice the CPU.

Eh, that's not worth it.  7M disk space saved for twice the work isn't
that good of a tradeoff.  I'm not in favor of that version.

> With the patch above the Linux kernel pack is 0.3% smaller with 1% more 
> CPU usage.  But like for the diff-delta hash list limiting code this 
> small overhead is certainly a good compromize to avoid big degradations 
> in some other cases.

Hmm.  See the email I just sent. I was seeing a good 10% increase
in my own tests on a Linux kernel repository.  But I guess I can
hope that my test was flawed somehow and it really is closer to a 1%
increase in running time, making it more likely that the above fix
makes it into GIT.

-- 
Shawn.