Re: Joining historical repository using grafts or replace

[Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>]

Hi Dmitry,

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Christian,
>
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, because of such amount of refs, push in "historical" repository
>>> takes 12 sec, push in "working" repository takes 0.4 sec, push in
>>> "joined" repository takes 2 sec. Local operations with history like
>>> log and blame work with the same speed in "joined" repository as in
>>> "historical" repository.
>>
>> What does "joined" mean? Does it mean joined using grafts? Or joined
>> using replace refs? Or just the unsplit full repository?
>
> It's joined using grafts or replace. In both cases performance is the same.
>
>> Also what is interesting is if local operations work with the same
>> speed in the small "working" repository as in the unsplit full
>> repository.
>
> Speed of operations like git diff, git add, git commit is exactly the
> same in both repositories.
> Operations like git log and git blame work much faster in repository
> without history (not surprisingly :)
> For example, git log in small repository takes 0.2 sec, in full
> repository - 0.8 sec. git blame in full repository can take up to 9
> sec for large files with long history.

Ok, thanks for the information. I think it shows that indeed it makes
sense to split your repo.

Best,
Christian.