On Sat, 12 Mar 2011, Martin von Zweigbergk wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Mar 2011, Santi B?jar wrote:
>
> > Could you test also variants of the exponential strategy?
>
> I guess I could :-). Will see if I get time for that later today.
So here are the updated figures for the force-updated history
(pu-like):
u@{10} u@{100} u@{1000}
manual 0m0.535s 0m1.164s 0m1.415s
linear 0m1.245s 0m37.367s 5m10.068s
merge-base 0m14.490s 0m15.409s 0m15.508s
exp(1,2) 0m1.056s 0m6.175s 0m27.221s
exp(10,10) 0m1.950s 0m20.031s 0m18.215s
exp(7,7) 0m1.310s 0m6.851s 0m16.757s
and for the non-force-updated history (master-like):
u@{10} u@{100} u@{1000}
manual 0m0.885s 0m6.126s 0m52.248s
linear 0m1.349s 0m39.688s 5m28.753s
merge-base 0m1.160s 0m1.699s 0m1.901s
exp(1,2) 0m0.769s 0m4.342s 0m7.360s
exp(10,10) 0m0.700s 0m2.535s 0m3.110s
exp(7,7) 0m0.653s 0m2.332s 0m3.506s
exp(10,10) is worst possible for the test cases I picked, since the
wanted reflog entry is always the first one in an interval, so almost
10 times as many entries as necessary are considered. I therefore also
tried with exp(7,7) to get more fair figures.
/Martin
--
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