Seth House <seth@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 02:50:12PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> I'd rather not to see us do "text processing" in shell > > Agreed. What are your thoughts on the #2 approach? > > I noticed the comment in `git/xdiff-interface.h` about xdiff's gigabyte > limit so I created a 973 MB text file with a conflict and ran #2 through > a few mergetools to see how it went. I put /usr/bin/time in front of the > two `git merge-file` invocations. I know one person's machine is not > a benchmark but perhaps it's a discussion point? > > Each `git merge-file` call took ~11 seconds on my middle-tier laptop and > did not use enough RAM to hit swap. > > Writing the near-gigabyte LOCAL, BASE, REMOTE, & BACKUP files went > pretty quick. The mergetools themselves had mixed results: > > - vimdiff took several minutes (and a lot of swap) to open all four > files but did eventually work. > - tkdiff crashed. > - Meld spun for ~10 minutes and never opened. > > My takeaway: when trying to use a mergetool on a very large file, the > two `git merge-file` invocations are not likely to be where the > performance concern is. #2 is my preferred approach so far. Yeah, I am no expert about Windows, but at least I know how well "git merge-file" should work _anywhere_ (as opposed to "read -r" plus shell loop that I would not trust on a platform where even basic things like "sed" behaves differently from what we expect X-<), so from that point of view, it is vastly more preferrable, if the choices were only between #1 and #2.
