Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Side note: I also have a feeling that any operation that cares about > non-object sha1 performance is probably ripe for other, bigger > optimizations. If you update 300MB worth of index entries, then the > cost of computing a checksum over it isn't a big deal. But if you have > a 300MB index file and you update one entry (or you just want to read > one entry), maybe we ought to consider solutions that don't involve > the whole 300MB in the first place. I know that's a much harder change > because it may involve new on-disk formats. But it seems like that's > the right long-term path forward. Yes ;-)