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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).