Re: [PATCH 5/7] p5313: add size comparison test

[Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>]

On 11/21/24 3:31 PM, Taylor Blau wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 03:05:05AM +0000, Derrick Stolee via GitGitGadget wrote:
>> From: Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>

>> The thin pack that simulates a push is much worse with --full-name-hash
>> in this case. The name hash values are doing a lot to assist with delta
>> bases, it seems. The big pack and shallow clone cases are slightly worse
>> with the --full-name-hash option. Only the full repack gains some
>> benefits in size.
> 
> Not a problem with your patch, but just thinking aloud: do you think
> there is an easy/straightforward way to suggest when to use
> --full-name-hash or not?

The kinds of heuristics I would use are:

1. Are there enough commits that enough files have enough versions
    across history that it's very important to keep deltas within a path?

2. Is the repository at least 500MB such that there is actually room for
    a "meaningful" change in size?

3. Are there a lot of name-hash collisions? (The last patch in the series
    helps do this through a test-helper, but isn't something we can expect
    end users to check themselves.)


>> +	cat >in-shallow <<-EOF
>> +	$(git rev-parse HEAD)
>> +	--shallow $(git rev-parse HEAD)
>> +	EOF
>> +'
> 
> I was going to comment that these could probably be moved into the
> individual perf test that cares about reading each of these inputs. But
> having them shared here makes sense since we are naturally comparing
> generating two packs with the same input (with and without
> --full-name-hash). So the shared setup here makes sense to me.

I also wanted to avoid having these commands be part of the time
measurement, even if they are extremely small.

>> +
>> +test_perf 'thin pack' '
>> +	git pack-objects --thin --stdout --revs --sparse  <in-thin >out
>> +'
>> +
>> +test_size 'thin pack size' '
>> +	test_file_size out
>> +'
> 
> Nice. I always forget about this and end up writing 'wc -c <out'.

I believe this is a Junio recommendation from an earlier version.

>> +test_size 'repack size' '
>> +	pack=$(ls .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack) &&
>> +	test_file_size "$pack"
> 
> Here and below, I think it's fine to inline this as in:
> 
>      test_file_size "$(ls .git/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)"

Generally I prefer to split things into stages so the verbose output
provides a clear definition of the value when calling the Git command.

> ...but I wonder: will using ".git" break this test in bare repositories?
> Should we write instead:
> 
>      pack="$(ls $(git rev-parse --git-dir)/objects/pack/pack-*.pack)" &&
>      test_file_size
> 
> ?
While this would break a bare repo, the perf lib makes a bare repo be
copied into a non-bare repo as follows:

test_perf_copy_repo_contents () {
	for stuff in "$1"/*
	do
		case "$stuff" in
		*/objects|*/hooks|*/config|*/commondir|*/gitdir|*/worktrees|*/fsmonitor--daemon*)
			;;
		*)
			cp -R "$stuff" "$repo/.git/" || exit 1
			;;
		esac
	done
}

I'll still add the `git rev-parse` suggestion because it's safest.

Thanks,
-Stolee