From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Is cogito really this inefficient Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:38:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20050714083831.B26322@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20050713135052.C6791@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 14 09:39:27 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DsyJa-0007XR-IH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:39:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262944AbVGNHjL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:39:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262949AbVGNHjL (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:39:11 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:57106 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262944AbVGNHif (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jul 2005 03:38:35 -0400 Received: from flint.arm.linux.org.uk ([2002:d412:e8ba:1:201:2ff:fe14:8fad]) by caramon.arm.linux.org.uk with asmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.41) id 1DsyIi-0005Z0-GL; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:38:32 +0100 Received: from rmk by flint.arm.linux.org.uk with local (Exim 4.41) id 1DsyIh-0006xT-BV; Thu, 14 Jul 2005 08:38:31 +0100 To: Matthias Urlichs Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from smurf@smurf.noris.de on Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:51:30PM +0200 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 06:51:30PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, Russell King wrote: > > > This says it all. 1min 22secs to generate a patch from a locally > > modified but uncommitted file. > > I only get that when the index is out-of-date WRT the file modification > dates, so cg-diff has to examine every file. > > The good news is that the index is being updated as it finds that the > files are in sync, so expect this to be significantly faster the next time > around. It isn't. First time it was 1min11, second time _immediately_ after it was 1min22. See my reply to Linus. Oddly, show-diff seemed to be a lot more efficient in previous git revisions. -- Russell King