Jon Smirl wrote:
Let's back up a little bit from "Caclulating tree node". What are the
elements of git's data structures?
Right now we have an index structure (tree nodes) integrated in to a
base table. Integrating indexing into the data is not normally done in
a database. Doing a normalization analysis like this may expose flaws
in the way the data is structured. Of course we may also decide to
leave everything the way it is.
What about the special status of a rename? In the current model we
effectively have three tables.
commit - a set of all SHAs in the commit, previous commit, comment, author, etc
blob - a file, permissions, etc.
file names - name, SHA
commit - SHA1 of its parent(s) and its root-tree, along with
author info and a free-form field
blob - content addressable by *multiple trees*
file names - List of path-names inside a tree object.
To draw some sort of relationship model here, you'd have
commit 1<->M roottree
tree M<->M tree
tree M<->M blob
Assuming SHA1 never collides (collisions rule out any form of storage,
so we might as well hope it never happens), that leaves us with this:
Each root tree can only ever belong to a single commit, unless you
intentionally force git to make completely empty commits. git
won't complain about this, so long as you don't make two in the
same second, because it relies more heavily on the DAG than on
developer sanity.
Each root tree can point to multiple sub-trees. The sub-trees can be
linked to any number of root-trees.
Blobs can be linked to any number of tree objects, or even multiple
times to the same tree object. This wouldn't be possible if the
blob objects had their own pathnames stored inside them, so to speak.
The file name table is encoded as an index and it has been
intermingled with the commit table.
Looking at this from a set theory angle brings up the question, do we
really have three tables and file names are an independent variable
from the blobs, or should file names be an attribute of the blob?
File names are not independant variables. They belong inside the
table created for them, which is the tree objects.
How this gets structured in the db is an independent question about
how renames get detected on a commit. The current scheme for detecting
renames by comparing diffs is working fine. The question is, once we
detect a rename how should it be stored?
Do you realize that you're contradicting yourself in two upon each
other following sentences here?
Detecting renames after the fashion works fine. Not storing them
is part of the "detect them by comparing diffs".
Ignoring the performance impacts and looking at the problem from the
set theory view point, should:
the pathnames be in their own table with a row for each alias
the pathnames be stored as an attribute of the blob
Both of these are the same information, we're just looking at how
things are normalized.
Except that
git init
echo foo > a
cp -a a b
git add .
git commit -m testing
git count-objects
yields 3 objects at the moment; A commit-object, a tree object and *one*
blob object. With your scheme the 2 blob objects would differ, and there
would be 4 of them. If you propose to ignore the path-name you have
effectively broken support for having two identical files with different
names in the same directory.
Now, can you please tell me what gains you're hoping to see with this
new layout of yours?
--
Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@xxxxxx
OP5 AB www.op5.se
Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231
-
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
