Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In other words, right now we have to do two queries when an commit > doesn't have a bitmap stored: > > - first, a lookup to see whether we have already loaded a bitmap for > that commit > > - then, a subsequent lookup to see whether the .bitmap file itself has > a bitmap for that commit, but we just haven't loaded it yet > > If we knew that we had loaded all of the bitmaps in the file, then we > could simplify the above two queries into one, since whatever the first > one returns is enough to know whether or not a bitmap exists at all. Hmm, agreed. > Ahhh. Thanks for refreshing my memory. I wonder if you think there is a > convenient way to work some of this into a short comment to help other > readers in the future, too. Actually, Derrick has suggested to go with iterative approach[1] instead of Recursive approach. What's your view on it? > Right, that part makes sense to me. But I wonder if we should still > print something, perhaps just "Bitmap v1 test" or "Bitmap v1 test (%d > entries)" omitting the "loaded" part. Yeah, of course we can! Thanks :) [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/92dc6860-ff35-0989-5114-fe1e220ca10c@xxxxxxxxxx/
