Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 04:44:33PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Clemens Buchacher wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:58:45AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > > Somebody cares to explain why this threashold number has to be different > > > > per platform in the first place? > > > > > > I really don't know. I vaguely remember someone claim that performance on > > > Windows suffered from many loose objects more than on other platforms. I > > > can't find any discussion of it though. > > > > Maybe 8ff487c? Yes, it was 8ff487c. Back then I was using Windows on a daily basis and this was put into git-gui because Aunt Tillie couldn't remember do run a git-gc every so often, and performance would just drop in the bucket. It also quite a bit predates `git gc --auto` being sprinkled throughout the code base on various operations. As to why its been 200 as the loose count estimate, that was just a WAG based on what I observed on my desktop. 2000 on UNIX is usually fine, 2000 on Windows meant you waited an extra 30 seconds to perform an operation. > Ok. But it's been 2 years since then and if I'm not mistaken, there have > been a number of performance improvements to msysgit. So maybe it's time to > revisit that threshold. msysgit may have improved, but at the time I was running Git on Cygwin, and I doubt NTFS has really improved that much. > If, on the other hand, requiring 2 objects really is too many, we should > maybe check at least two or four directories, which would greatly improve > the statistic. I'm concerned about the FS cost of checking more directories, but this is a one-time penalty on startup of git-gui so it might not be too bad if it gets us a better estimate. -- Shawn. -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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