On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 7:54 AM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 21 2021, Elijah Newren wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 20, 2021 at 6:32 PM Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason > > <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, May 12 2020, Emily Shaffer wrote: > >> > >> [Replying to a change long-since merged into git.git's "master"] > >> > >> > Rather than teaching only one operation, like 'git fetch', how to write > >> > down throughput to traces, we can learn about a wide range of user > >> > operations that may seem slow by adding tooling to the progress library > >> > itself. Operations which display progress are likely to be slow-running > >> > and the kind of thing we want to monitor for performance anyways. By > >> > showing object counts and data transfer size, we should be able to > >> > make some derived measurements to ensure operations are scaling the way > >> > we expect. > >> > >> Did you end up using this data for anything? > > > > I know you were asking Emily, but independently, I found it useful > > while doing merge-ort and diffcore-rename optimizations. I thought it > > was a clever idea for quickly adding more measurement regions easily, > > and wished I had thought of it myself earlier. > > Indeed, the data's useful. I'm just wondering about the key name. > > I saw after I sent this that this was brought up when the patch was > discussed, and the name was just left in there: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/8f159f13-ed61-61ea-8e9a-c1ffbc5fddb3@xxxxxxxxx/ Yeah, I didn't comment on the key name because the name wasn't important for my purposes: I didn't have scripts or anything looking at the logs, just me reading them. "total_objects" worked just fine (and was slightly more precise wording) for my case, but since this code is used in lots of areas, I'd be totally fine to see it switched to "total".
