Re: Some git performance measurements..

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote:

> On Dec 7, 2007 6:37 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 7, 2007 1:49 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I benchmarked 3 alternative qsorts, qsortG [2] was the fastest 
> > > > > on my system but has funky licensing, the NetBSD qsort was 
> > > > > middle-range and the glibc one the slowest of the three (but 
> > > > > that could be due to it being tuned for a "Sun 4/260"). All of 
> > > > > them show over 100x speed improvements on a git-status of my 
> > > > > main repo (104s -> ~0.7s)
> > > >
> >
> > Okay, sorry, I did not bother reading further when I read "You may use 
> > it in anything you like;".
> >
> > But if the author did not respond, it might be a better idea to just 
> > reimplement it.
> >
> 
> I've just tried the mergesort implementation as used in msysgit and that 
> performs faster for me. It's simpler, and compatibly licensed. It looks 
> good.

Now I'm confused.  You said you tested qsortG, NetBSD qsort and qlibc, 
with glibc performing the slowest.  Now, 4msysgit's implementation is 
based on glibc (Thanks Brian!), so I wonder if you could redo the 
performance tests and say if qsortG still is substantially faster than 
4msysgit's qsort?

Ciao,
Dscho