From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nanako Shiraishi Subject: Re: git performance Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:24:12 +0900 Message-ID: <20081024072412.6117@nanako3.lavabit.com> References: <000801c93483$2fdad340$8f9079c0$@com> <20081022203624.GA4585@coredump.intra.peff.net> <000901c93490$e0c40ed0$a24c2c70$@com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Edward Ned Harvey , git@vger.kernel.org To: Daniel Barkalow X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 24 00:26:14 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Kt8dA-0003Cz-Vs for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 00:26:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752544AbYJWWY7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:24:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752204AbYJWWY7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:24:59 -0400 Received: from karen.lavabit.com ([72.249.41.33]:37085 "EHLO karen.lavabit.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752008AbYJWWY6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:24:58 -0400 Received: from d.earth.lavabit.com (d.earth.lavabit.com [192.168.111.13]) by karen.lavabit.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6ABC8950; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:24:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from 1823.lavabit.com (212.62.97.23) by lavabit.com with ESMTP id EP2QQ8PHEOBB; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:24:57 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lavabit; d=lavabit.com; b=SDw4zdBjTJZqT2PW5/ln6bDQwtTG06Xv6EK+yHBRz+WMucqcOYzAh0a0w+vT5pTDf0XzewLQcfxYCP60FvNU8Vc95CSU+knaEX3Vnjgn4Iu3gxo6rbR2TnHYx7b4CLJkxOo6FXKv1aR9vTKyAzFEi3SjWl0GK8QW7oNBT47FAO0=; h=From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:In-reply-to:References:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id; In-reply-to: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Quoting Daniel Barkalow : > On Wed, 22 Oct 2008, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, what are they talking about, when they say "git is >> fast?" Just the fact that it's all local disk, or is there more to it >> than that? I could see - git would probably outperform perforce for >> versioning of large files (let's say iso files) to benefit from >> sustained local disk IO, while perforce would probably outperform >> anything I can think of, operating on thousands of tiny files, because >> it will never walk the tree. > > It shouldn't be too hard to make git work like perforce with respect to > walking the tree. git keeps an index of the stat() info it saw when it > last looked at files, and only looks at the contents of files whose stat() > info has changed. In order to have it work like perforce, it would just > need to have a flag in the stat() info index for "don't even bother", Are you describing the "assume unchanged bit"? -- Nanako Shiraishi http://ivory.ap.teacup.com/nanako3/