From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [217.216.95.84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97026373BE9 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 06:49:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781160561; cv=none; b=FhOTOGbRojUye5YBr8PuGqI4D8a1Hhx7F79jSK2UrI/oMSUnjWKPpv0tkRiiblVroC5A27uRC5PGNdtSFl27JCZEGGy5L4cmHUBoYuzl/q+lOEnQMEOZj+sM3tDz/jsviplD7a1XVHuJQqMIfqHemAGsTW3pGcdblnVkkm+EOrE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1781160561; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/Ug7JwV/MCfzAzuptamjwCfKG7//JckwalWMs06deRM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ijl1ujSKNyHuvBkVU53UlTTnXFhDGetl6TKixsdceMiXoUXNbdMrVhKQbkK8UVqNX620T13JifPmfpiuQwkIG9sGzc58zoOhWUU1HxtQOiq9BKI/V/wzHf52hJ1LW7FcGuKKn3JIDw1yJ60ddxTieylDuzL9K6SBZHhmF9Rqiqk= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b=Y8Y4hAHD; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.216.95.84 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=peff.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=peff.net header.i=@peff.net header.b="Y8Y4hAHD" Received: (qmail 106303 invoked by uid 106); 11 Jun 2026 06:49:13 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=peff.net; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=20240930; bh=/Ug7JwV/MCfzAzuptamjwCfKG7//JckwalWMs06deRM=; b=Y8Y4hAHDwTCbnv0TjBP0f0CeySGaS21A4BwAWwvJ79XOurUeA6hSremBamp8FEj+MTtAS+RXpbZHR5daB5PauQNTSONxT1MJbM56k7RL6t2bAbfBJBMCnynzv87rovfDKzWwx4lX/unFAQYE5OOgiQfxM01XbeWOFfgqyVDbOg/+1z64FKuQv6swtcbKkir4enpFr0YFGnGrS1JC/2I/bw1MnNOir4UrFZtDyWxV+pqXidlKj4wf+BPecklWszsHl3XlA1eDH8DxN9ZU5x5Cw/EY+7zWpDvlRqMtffjqxDdvSScIlTNluCRHYkVw50ogqTXkRAFbfU2GxwdmV9xr/A== Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 06:49:13 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 314065 invoked by uid 111); 11 Jun 2026 06:49:17 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO coredump.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Jun 2026 02:49:17 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 02:49:12 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Tamir Duberstein Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Patrick Steinhardt Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] describe: limit default ref iteration to tags Message-ID: <20260611064912.GC2191159@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <20260608-describe-tag-ref-scope-v2-1-256fd36dca32@gmail.com> <20260610-describe-tag-ref-scope-v3-1-5aa63ab279f7@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260610-describe-tag-ref-scope-v3-1-5aa63ab279f7@gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 10, 2026 at 11:50:01AM -0700, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > The runtime drops from 0.03(0.01+0.01) to 0.02(0.00+0.00). In a > repository with 120,532 refs but only 330 tags, the same command went > from 171.7 ms to 9.9 ms. > > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein > --- > Changes in v3: > - Pack the synthetic refs to better match repositories with many refs. > - Generate update-ref input with test_seq -f. > - Shorten the commit message and report the p6100.6 result. > - Link to v2: https://patch.msgid.link/20260608-describe-tag-ref-scope-v2-1-256fd36dca32@gmail.com Thanks, this looks fine to me. I am still puzzled that your 120k ref repo is so slow in the before case. Even bumping the perf test to 100k refs, it ~10ms on my machine. But maybe it's a combination of not being well packed, plus a slower filesystem. At any rate, I think it is obvious that doing less work is always going to be better, so there's not much need to dig too deeply into the differences for information that is probably not that useful. -Peff