On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:20:46AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I am perfectly fine with the use of perl but do we know the "perl" binary > found on $PATH (as opposed to $PERL_PATH) is good to use for this purpose? > The features used in the scriptlet seem so bread-and-butter that I don't > think it would make too much of a difference, but we may want to be > consistent. We already make the assumption elsewhere in the tests that perl in $PATH is some minimal sane version (which probably means some version of perl5 in practice). This little script looks like it should run under any perl5 to me. > I personally think USE_LOOKUP outlived its usefulness. It was meant to be > an easy way to experiment if the sha1_entry_pos() lookup gives better > performance while looking up a pack entry, to choose one implementation > and discard the other, but I don't think anybody actually did meaningful > benchmarks to decide which one to keep. > > Perhaps we should discard the codepath USE_LOOKUP turns on, which I > suspect hasn't been exercised since v1.5.6 days by anybody. An obvious > alternative is for somebody to try using USE_LOOKUP and see if it really > gives a better performance with large packs (and if so, always use it and > discard the other codepath). Vicent asked me about it the other day with respect to doing something similar in libgit2. I tried a few basic things and never ended up getting any substantially different timing (or even page faults) between the two strategies. Vicent, did you do any timings where it made a difference? -Peff -- 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