From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: git-fsck/lost-found's speed vs git-prune's Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:18:44 -0700 Message-ID: <7v4phswcuj.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Mike Hommey X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 18 11:18:55 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IXZEK-0000Zy-0C for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:18:52 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753839AbXIRJSt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756138AbXIRJSt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:18:49 -0400 Received: from rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.210.124.37]:51481 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753579AbXIRJSs (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:18:48 -0400 Received: from pobox.com (ip68-225-240-77.oc.oc.cox.net [68.225.240.77]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85DA1373ED; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 05:19:07 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20070918090926.GA8927@glandium.org> (Mike Hommey's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:09:26 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Mike Hommey writes: > I was wondering if that was to be expected for git-fsck to be > significantly slower than git-prune (by several orders of magnitude) ? fsck validates objects are correct and sane. prune only looks at reachability.