Hi Dmitry, On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Christian, > >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Dmitry Oksenchuk <oksenchuk89@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> 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. Ok, thanks for the information. I think it shows that indeed it makes sense to split your repo. Best, Christian. -- 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