On Mon, Jul 09, 2007 at 12:27:24AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> It would become worrysome (*BUT* infinitely more interesting) > >> once you start talking about a tradeoff between slightly larger > >> delta and much shorter delta. Such a tradeoff, if done right, > >> would make a lot of sense, but I do not offhand think of a way > >> to strike a proper balance between them efficiently. > > > > Yeah, I was thinking about that too, and came to the same conclusion. > > I suspect you'd have to save a /lot/ of delta depth to want to pay any > > more I/O, though. > > That may not be so. Deeper delta also means more I/O (and > worse, because they can be from discontiguous areas) plus delta > application. Good point. I guess if I were to think about a metric for deciding whether to go for a small deep delta or a larger shallow one, I would probably keep track of the total path size (the sum of the base size and all the delta sizes) for each entry, and play with a weighting formula of single delta size verses total path size. -bcd - 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
