From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: RFC: Flat directory for notes, or fan-out? Both! Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:32:52 -0800 Message-ID: <7vljsdly7f.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <7vocxam96s.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> <200902102316.56348.trast@student.ethz.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Johannes Schindelin , "Shawn O. Pearce" , Jeff King , git@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Rast X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 10 23:34:53 2009 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 1LX1Bm-0003v2-Hr for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:34:47 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757033AbZBJWdF (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:33:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757030AbZBJWdE (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:33:04 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:56298 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753650AbZBJWdD (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:33:03 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 465A42ADD5; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:33:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14BD22ADD2; Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:32:53 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <200902102316.56348.trast@student.ethz.ch> (Thomas Rast's message of "Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:16:49 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C63F0C18-F7C2-11DD-BDE9-6F7C8D1D4FD0-77302942!a-sasl-quonix.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Thomas Rast writes: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> Or we could use an on-disk hashmap. Oh, wait... > > While reading this thread, I sure wondered ... why don't we use the > one on-disk fast access structure we already have: the index? Since when the index has become a on-disk fast access structure? > Sure, one problem is that the index reading code is inherently written > for a single index state. That's wrong, but because the index is not a on-disk fast access structure to begin with, the incorrect statement about it is excused ;-)