Hi,
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>
> > I do not understand... the entries of a tree object are sorted
> > alphabetically, right? Including the convention that if one is a
> > prefix of another, it is "smaller".
> >
> > While I think that the length would not be any problem, the entries'
> > names of refs/annotations/commit^{tree} are _all_ of length two, and
> > point to other tree objects. _Those_ tree objects contain _only_
> > entries whose names contain exactly 38 characters.
>
> That is ONLY true if you are introducing a specialized tree
> object parser that knows it is dealing with the tree used in
> your annotation scheme that has entries of uniform size. In
> such a tree parser, you could bisect or Newton-Raphson a tree
> object data to find an entry more efficiently than for normal
> trees with enries of variable size.
Ouch. That is a real flaw in my proposal. It completely destroys my "I
think this will scale just fine" argument.
> If that happens, "refs/annotations/commit:?{40}" format would let you
> look up an annotation for a given commit much more efficiently than
> "refs/annotations/commit:??/?{38}", because it would have to open only
> one tree object, instead of two.
Let me think that one through. At the moment I cannot think of an easy
fix.
Ciao,
Dscho
-
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
