On 03.05.2014 05:40, Felipe Contreras wrote: >>> That's very interesting. Do you get similar improvements when doing >>> something similar in Merurial (watchman vs . no watchman). >> >> I have not tried it. My understanding is that this is why Facebook >> wrote Watchman and added support for it to Mercurial, so I would assume >> that the improvements are at least this good. > > Yeah, my bet is that they are actually much better (because Mercurial > can't be so optimized as Git). > > I'm interested in this number because if watchman in Git is improving it > by 30%, but in Mercurial it's improving it by 100% (made up number), > therefore it makes sens that you might want it more if you are using hg, > but not so much if you are using git. > > Also, if similar repositories with Mercurial+watchman are actually > faster than Git+watchman, that means that there's room for improvement > in your implementation. This is not a big issue at this point of the > process, just something nice to know. The article at [1] has some details, they claim "For our repository, enabling Watchman integration has made Mercurial's status command more than 5x faster than Git's status command". [1] https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ -- Sebastian Schuberth -- 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