On Monday, April 02, 2012 10:39:59 am Shawn Pearce wrote: > On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 09:24, Martin Fick <mfick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday, March 31, 2012 04:11:01 pm René Scharfe wrote: > Git can't really do the same thing as "cache the > RevWalk". Its spawning a new process that needs to > decompress and parse each commit object to determine its > timestamp so the commits can be sorted into the priority > queue. This is still an O(N) operation given N > references. While I suspect this has been suggested before, an ondisk cache of commits to timestamps would probably help here with large repos. Such a cache could make even new processes able to create this list much quicker. Since this cache would contain immutable data, even if it is out of date it would likely provided significant improvements by providing most of the timestamps leaving only a few to parse from newer commits? -Martin -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. which is a member of Code Aurora Forum -- 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