From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Add git-archive-tree Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:27:28 -0700 Message-ID: <7vwt8mx8lb.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <44F977C0.4060901@lsrfire.ath.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Franck Bui-Huu X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Sep 02 23:27:45 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GJd1j-00044C-Cc for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2006 23:27:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751612AbWIBV1X (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:27:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751613AbWIBV1X (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:27:23 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net ([68.230.241.32]:7850 "EHLO fed1rmmtao07.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751611AbWIBV1W (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:27:22 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo02.cox.net ([70.169.32.72]) by fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060902212722.XEAA21457.fed1rmmtao07.cox.net@fed1rmimpo02.cox.net>; Sat, 2 Sep 2006 17:27:22 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id HZTN1V00c1kojtg0000000 Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:27:23 -0400 To: Rene Scharfe In-Reply-To: <44F977C0.4060901@lsrfire.ath.cx> (Rene Scharfe's message of "Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:23:28 +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: Rene Scharfe writes: > Currently git-archive-tree -f tar is slower than git-tar-tree. This is > because it is welded to the side of the existing code to minimize patch > size, and I also suspect read_tree_recursive() to be quite a bit slower > than builtin-tar-tree.c::traverse_tree(). Yes, I suspect "struct object" and friends are very inefficient to use for things like this. "struct tree_desc" based traverser is much preferred. -- VGER BF report: U 0.772588