On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Shawn Pearce <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Given that the index can now also be multi-level, I don't expect to >> see a 2G index. A 2G index forces the reader to load the entire 2G to >> take advantage of the restart table. It may be more efficient for such >> a reader to have had the writer make a mutli-level index, instead of a >> single monster index block. And so perhaps the writer shouldn't make a >> 2G index block that she is forced to buffer. :) > > Ah, OK, then it is sensible to have all table blocks to have the > same format, and restart at the beginning to help readers would be a > fine choice. For the same "let's make them as consistent" sake, I > am tempted to suggest that we lift "the index block can be 2G" and > have it also be within uint_24(), perhaps? Otherwise the readers > would have to read (or mmap) the whole 2G. Gah. I just finished moving the restart table back to the end of the block. :) However, I think I can agree with the index fitting into the uint24 size of 15M, and asking writers making an index that exceeds that to use multi-level indexing.
