From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/11] writing out a huge blob to working tree Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 03:50:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20110518075023.GD27482@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1305505831-31587-1-git-send-email-gitster@pobox.com> <20110518064158.GB27482@sigill.intra.peff.net> <20110518070837.GC27482@sigill.intra.peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 18 09:50:31 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QMbWZ-0005Wq-Cs for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 09:50:31 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755179Ab1ERHu0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 03:50:26 -0400 Received: from 99-108-226-0.lightspeed.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([99.108.226.0]:37306 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754316Ab1ERHu0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 03:50:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 2783 invoked by uid 107); 18 May 2011 07:52:26 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Wed, 18 May 2011 03:52:26 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 18 May 2011 03:50:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110518070837.GC27482@sigill.intra.peff.net> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 03:08:37AM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > Part of the problem is that with the current code, all you care about is > "Is it loose, packed non-delta, or packed delta?". > [...] > The patch below implements the cheap "is_delta" check. Hmm, sorry, this patch works well on top of cd36b7b, where I first detected the slowness, but later in the series we actually do look at the pack information in the object_info. So my patch breaks that code path horribly (I still think the concept of avoiding the revindex should still work in principle, though). -Peff