RE: Watchman support for git

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

David Turner wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-05-02 at 18:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > dturner@ wrote:
> > > Test repository 1: Linux
> > > 
> > > Linux is about 45k files in 3k directories.  The average length of a
> > > filename is about 32 bytes.
> > > 
> > > Git status timing:
> > > no watchman: 125ms
> > > watchman: 90ms
> > 
> > That's very interesting. Do you get similar improvements when doing
> > something similar in Merurial (watchman vs . no watchman).
> 
> I have not tried it.  My understanding is that this is why Facebook
> wrote Watchman and added support for it to Mercurial, so I would assume
> that the improvements are at least this good.

Yeah, my bet is that they are actually much better (because Mercurial
can't be so optimized as Git).

I'm interested in this number because if watchman in Git is improving it
by 30%, but in Mercurial it's improving it by 100% (made up number),
therefore it makes sens that you might want it more if you are using hg,
but not so much if you are using git.

Also, if similar repositories with Mercurial+watchman are actually
faster than Git+watchman, that means that there's room for improvement
in your implementation. This is not a big issue at this point of the
process, just something nice to know.

-- 
Felipe Contreras