From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Cc: Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: git-diff-tree -M performance regression in 'next'
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 17:09:47 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121700410.3618@g5.osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vwtezw4ye.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> To reduce wasted memory, wait until the hash fills up more
> densely before we rehash. This reduces the working set size a
> bit further.
Umm. Why do you rehash at all?
Just take the size of the "src" file as the initial hash size.
Also, I think it is likely really wasteful to try to actually hash at
_each_ character. Instead, let's say that the chunk-size is 8 bytes (like
you do now), and let's say that you have a 32-bit good hash of those 8
bytes. What you can do is:
- for each 8 bytes in the source, hash those 8 bytes (not every byte)
- for each byte in the other file, hash 8 next bytes. IF it matches a
hash in the source with a non-zero count, subtract the count for that
hash and move up by _eight_ characters! If it doesn't, add one to
"characters not matched" counter, and move up _one_ character, and try
again.
At the end of this, you have two counts: the count of characters that you
couldn't match in the other file, and the count of 8-byte hash-chunks that
you couldn't match in the first one. Use those two counts to decide if
it's close or not.
Especially for good matches, this should basically cut your work into an
eight of what you do now.
Actually, even for bad matches, you cut the first source overhead into one
eight (the second file will obviously do the "update by 1 byte" most of
the time).
Don't you think that would be as accurate as what you're doing now (it's
the same basic notion, after all), and noticeably faster?
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-13 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-11 17:28 git-diff-tree -M performance regression in 'next' Fredrik Kuivinen
2006-03-12 3:10 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-12 12:28 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-12 17:00 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-12 19:34 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-13 0:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-13 1:09 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2006-03-13 1:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-13 1:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-13 1:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-13 1:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-13 2:29 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-13 2:53 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-13 4:14 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-14 2:55 ` Junio C Hamano
2006-03-14 3:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2006-03-14 10:26 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.64.0603121700410.3618@g5.osdl.org \
--to=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=freku045@student.liu.se \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=junkio@cox.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).