On Mon, Jan 08 2018, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 1/7/2018 5:42 PM, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >> >> On Sun, Jan 07 2018, Derrick Stolee jotted: >> >>> git log --oneline --raw --parents >>> >>> Num Packs | Before MIDX | After MIDX | Rel % | 1 pack % >>> ----------+-------------+------------+--------+---------- >>> 1 | 35.64 s | 35.28 s | -1.0% | -1.0% >>> 24 | 90.81 s | 40.06 s | -55.9% | +12.4% >>> 127 | 257.97 s | 42.25 s | -83.6% | +18.6% >>> >>> The last column is the relative difference between the MIDX-enabled repo >>> and the single-pack repo. The goal of the MIDX feature is to present the >>> ODB as if it was fully repacked, so there is still room for improvement. >>> >>> Changing the command to >>> >>> git log --oneline --raw --parents --abbrev=40 >>> >>> has no observable difference (sub 1% change in all cases). This is likely >>> due to the repack I used putting commits and trees in a small number of >>> packfiles so the MRU cache workes very well. On more naturally-created >>> lists of packfiles, there can be up to 20% improvement on this command. >>> >>> We are using a version of this patch with an upcoming release of GVFS. >>> This feature is particularly important in that space since GVFS performs >>> a "prefetch" step that downloads a pack of commits and trees on a daily >>> basis. These packfiles are placed in an alternate that is shared by all >>> enlistments. Some users have 150+ packfiles and the MRU misses and >>> abbreviation computations are significant. Now, GVFS manages the MIDX file >>> after adding new prefetch packfiles using the following command: >>> >>> git midx --write --update-head --delete-expired --pack-dir=<alt> >> >> (Not a critique of this, just a (stupid) question) >> >> What's the practical use-case for this feature? Since it doesn't help >> with --abbrev=40 the speedup is all in the part that ensures we don't >> show an ambiguous SHA-1. > > The point of including the --abbrev=40 is to point out that object > lookups do not get slower with the MIDX feature. Using these "git log" > options is a good way to balance object lookups and abbreviations with > object parsing and diff machinery.[...] [snip] > [...]And while the public data shape I shared did not show a > difference, our private testing of the Windows repository did show a > valuable improvement when isolating to object lookups and ignoring > abbreviation calculations. Replying to this old thread since I see you're prepearing the MIDX for submission again and this seemed like the best venue. Your WIP branch (github.com/git/derrickstolee/midx/upstream) still only references the speedups in abbreviation calculations, but here you allude to other improvements. It would be very nice to have some summary of that in docs / commit messages when you submit this. I've been meaning to get around to submitting something like I mentioned in https://public-inbox.org/git/87efn0bkls.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ i.e. a way to expand the abbrev mode to not check disambiguations, which would look something like: core.abbrev = 20 core.validateAbbrev = false Or: core.abbrev = +2 core.validateAbbrev = false So, using the example from the above referenced E-Mail +2 would make linux.git emit hashes of 14 characters, without any abbreviation checking (just trusting in statistics to work in your favor). As noted by JS in this thread that wouldn't be acceptable for your use-case, but there's plenty of people (including me) who'd appreciate the speedup without being a 100% sure we're emitting unambiguous hashes, since that trade-off is better than time spent generating another index on-disk. So I see it as a complimentary & orthogonal feature. But with that implemented I wouldn't get any benefit from things that use the MIDX that aren't abbreviations, so what are those? >> The reason we do that at all is because it makes for a prettier UI. > > We tried setting core.abbrev=40 on GVFS enlistments to speed up > performance and the users rebelled against the hideous output. They > would rather have slower speeds than long hashes. > >> Are there things that both want the pretty SHA-1 and also care about the >> throughput? I'd have expected machine parsing to just use >> --no-abbrev-commit. > > The --raw flag outputs blob hashes, so the --abbrev=40 covers all hashes. > >> If something cares about both throughput and e.g. is saving the >> abbreviated SHA-1s isn't it better off picking some arbitrary size >> (e.g. --abbrev=20), after all the default abbreviation is going to show >> something as small as possible, which may soon become ambigous after the >> next commit. > > Unfortunately, with the way the abbreviation algorithms work, using > --abbrev=20 will have similar performance problems because you still > need to inspect all packfiles to ensure there isn't a collision in the > first 20 hex characters. > > Thanks, > -Stolee
