On 4/8/06, Fredrik Kuivinen <freku045@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:28:40AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > I've made a few changes to "git blame" myself:
> >
> > - fix breakage caused by recent revision walker reorganization;
> > - use built-in xdiff instead of spawning GNU diff;
> > - implement -S <ancestry-file> like annotate does.
> >
> > Depending on the density of changes, it now appears that blame
> > is 10%-30% faster than annotate. I thought CVS emulator might
> > be interested to give it a whirl..
> >
>
> Nice work!
>
> There is another possible optimisation with respect to xdiff. Instead
> of producing the diff on the xdiff side and parsing the diff in
> blame.c, we could add another call back which just gets the relevant
> information from the hunk header. I don't know how much we would gain
> from this, but it might be worth a try.
>
If I can comment on this thread, I would like to note IMHO that given
the differences in
languages (C vs Perl) and the use of almost the same algorithm, just a
10%-30% in speed difference between blame and annotate it means that
any further optimization can gain little because the bottleneck is
elsewhere.
And I think is in getting the revision's history. Call it
git-rev-list, although both
blame and annotate use directly the library revision.h
After the new xdiff merge, git-rev-list accounts for almost whole the time.
Normally more then 80% in qgit.
Although the qgit annotation algorithm is different from both blame
and annotate I think
that a faster git-rev-list <path> or revison history walker as you may
want to call it it's a key
in really speed-up annotation stuff.
Marco
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html