From: Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>
To: Shawn Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: jgit performance update
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:55:47 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200612031455.48032.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20061203045953.GE26668@spearce.org>
söndag 03 december 2006 05:59 skrev Shawn Pearce:
> With the help of Robin Rosenberg I've been able to make jgit's log
> operation run (on average) within a few milliseconds of core Git.
>
> Walking the 50,000 most recent commits from the Mozilla trunk[1]:
>
> $ time git rev-list --max-count=50000 HEAD >/dev/null
>
> core Git: 1.882s (average)
> jgit: 1.932s (average)
>
> (times are with hot cache and from repeated executions)
Nice indeed. That was a ten-fold improvement for getting my full history.
So, just go on to the next case. I added filtering on filenames (yes,
CVS-induced brain damage, I should track the content. next version. filenames
are so much handier to work with). That gives me 4.5s to retrieve a filtered
history (from 10800 commits).Half of the time is spent in re-sorting tree
entries. Is that really necessary?
> I think that is actually pretty good given that jgit is written
> in Java using a fairly object-oriented design and has to deal with
> some of the limitations of the language.
Most of java's slowness comes from the programmers using it. (Lutz Prechelt.
Technical opinion: comparing Java vs. C/C++ efficiency differences to
interpersonal differences. ACM, Vol 42,#10, 1999)
> One of the biggest annoyances has been the fact that although Java
> 1.4 offers a way to mmap a file into the process, the overhead to
> access that data seems to be far higher than just reading the file
> content into a very large byte array, especially if we are going
> to access that file content multiple times. So jgit performs worse
> than core Git early on while it copies everything from the OS buffer
> cache into the Java process, but then performs reasonably well once
> the internal cache is hot. On the other hand using the mmap call
> reduces early latency but hurts the access times so much that we're
> talking closer to 3s average read times for the same log operation.
Have you tried that with difference JVM's?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-12-03 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-12-03 4:59 jgit performance update Shawn Pearce
2006-12-03 13:55 ` Robin Rosenberg [this message]
2006-12-03 14:19 ` Jakub Narebski
2006-12-03 15:53 ` Robin Rosenberg
2006-12-03 23:06 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-03 22:59 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-03 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-12-03 17:56 ` Jakub Narebski
2006-12-03 22:42 ` Juergen Stuber
2006-12-03 23:39 ` Robin Rosenberg
2006-12-03 23:58 ` Jakub Narebski
2006-12-04 0:46 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-04 20:35 ` Juergen Stuber
2006-12-03 22:47 ` Shawn Pearce
2006-12-03 21:55 ` sf
2006-12-03 22:16 ` Shawn Pearce
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200612031455.48032.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com \
--to=robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=spearce@spearce.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.