On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:47:43PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > So here it is wrapped up as a patch. I think it's worth fixing (as > opposed to dropping the unused flag code). Thanks for finding it. Yup, after reading the patch and performance timings below, I agree that this is worth fixing and keeping instead of dropping. > It doesn't help at all when we have 1 pack (5303.4), but we get a 10% > speedup when there are 1000 packs (5303.12). That's a modest speedup for > a case that's already slow and we'd hope to avoid in general (note how > slow it is even after, because we have to look in each of those packs > for abbreviations). But it's a one-line change that clearly matches the > original intent, so it seems worth doing. Excellent. > The included perf test may also be useful for keeping an eye on any > regressions in the overall abbreviation code. > > Reported-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> > --- > packfile.c | 1 + > t/perf/p5303-many-packs.sh | 4 ++++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/packfile.c b/packfile.c > index 9ef27508f2..e69012e7f2 100644 > --- a/packfile.c > +++ b/packfile.c > @@ -923,6 +923,7 @@ unsigned long repo_approximate_object_count(struct repository *r) > count += p->num_objects; > } > r->objects->approximate_object_count = count; > + r->objects->approximate_object_count_valid = 1; > } > return r->objects->approximate_object_count; > } > diff --git a/t/perf/p5303-many-packs.sh b/t/perf/p5303-many-packs.sh > index 7ee791669a..f4c2ab0584 100755 > --- a/t/perf/p5303-many-packs.sh > +++ b/t/perf/p5303-many-packs.sh > @@ -73,6 +73,10 @@ do > git rev-list --objects --all >/dev/null > ' > > + test_perf "abbrev-commit ($nr_packs)" ' > + git rev-list --abbrev-commit HEAD >/dev/null > + ' > + > # This simulates the interesting part of the repack, which is the > # actual pack generation, without smudging the on-disk setup > # between trials. > -- > 2.28.0.982.gdd163d6eb1 Looks all very good to me. Thanks. Thanks, Taylor
