Hi Christian, > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2014-10-30 19:54 GMT+03:00 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> This might be a good idea. Did you already test that the small >>> repository is really faster than the full repository? >> >> Yes, because of such amount of refs, push in "historical" repository >> takes 12 sec, push in "working" repository takes 0.4 sec, push in >> "joined" repository takes 2 sec. Local operations with history like >> log and blame work with the same speed in "joined" repository as in >> "historical" repository. > > What does "joined" mean? Does it mean joined using grafts? Or joined > using replace refs? Or just the unsplit full repository? It's joined using grafts or replace. In both cases performance is the same. > Also what is interesting is if local operations work with the same > speed in the small "working" repository as in the unsplit full > repository. Speed of operations like git diff, git add, git commit is exactly the same in both repositories. Operations like git log and git blame work much faster in repository without history (not surprisingly :) For example, git log in small repository takes 0.2 sec, in full repository - 0.8 sec. git blame in full repository can take up to 9 sec for large files with long history. Regards, Dmitry -- 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