Why are ref_lists sorted?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Having got a C implementation of fetch far enough to be able to tell me that I'm up-to-date (when using git:// and not using remotes or branches files) I thought I'd compare performance with the fetch--tool based version. I was a bit surprised at what I saw.

Hot-cache time went from ~30s to ~3s, which didn't seem too bad. However what did puzzle me was where the C version was spending it's time. Being a work in progress it's a bit chatty in places, but there is an up-front delay of just over 1s (i.e. before my first message, which is the name of the remote to fetch).

A bit of investigation showed this to be due to the first attempt to read a ref causing the packed refs to be loaded. In my test repo the packed-refs file has over 9000 entries, but I still thought that it would load faster than that. It turns out that the overhead is from sorting the refs when building the ref_list. If I remove the code for sorting the entries I lose that initial 1s delay, without appearing to break anything in the fetch. However I assume that it's there for a reason ...

So my questions are:

1) what have I broken by removing the sort?
2) is it worth trying to optimise the sort?

--
Julian

 ---
<SpanKY> http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_806582.html?menu=news.quirkies
<Mr_Bones_> SpanKY: my life would have been much improved without that
 link.
-
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

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]