Hi Elijah,
On 17 Feb 2023, at 20:16, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 12:21 PM John Cai via GitGitGadget
> <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> When a repository contains different kinds of files, it may be desirable to
>> use different algorithms based on file type. This is currently not feasible
>> through the command line or using git configs. However, we can leverage the
>> fact that gitattributes are path aware.
>>
>> Teach the diff machinery to check gitattributes when diffing files by using
>> the existing diff. scheme, and add an "algorithm" type to the external
>> driver config.
> [...]
>> To address some of the performance concerns in the previous series, a
>> benchmark shows that a performance penalty is no longer incurred, now that
>> we are no longer adding an additional attributes parsing call:
>>
>> $ hyperfine -r 5 -L a bin-wrappers/git,git '{a} diff v2.0.0 v2.28.0'
>> Benchmark 1: git-bin-wrapper diff v2.0.0 v2.28.0 Time (mean ± σ): 1.072 s ±
>> 0.289 s [User: 0.626 s, System: 0.081 s] Range (min … max): 0.772 s … 1.537
>> s 5 runs
>>
>> Benchmark 2: git diff v2.0.0 v2.28.0 Time (mean ± σ): 1.003 s ± 0.065 s
>> [User: 0.684 s, System: 0.067 s] Range (min … max): 0.914 s … 1.091 s 5 runs
>>
>> Summary 'git diff v2.0.0 v2.28.0' ran 1.07 ± 0.30 times faster than
>> 'git-bin-wrapper diff v2.0.0 v2.28.0'
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand this. What are you measuring? I
> presume bin-wrappers/git refers to the version of git built with your
> changes, but what version of git does "git" refer to? Also, do you
> have any .gitattributes or .git/config changes present when you are
> testing to trigger the new functionality you have written?
>
> Also, doesn't this benchmark demonstrate the opposite of your claim?
> You said there was no performance penalty, but the benchmark shows a
> 7% slowdown. We've battled hard to get smaller improvements than
> that, so this is still worrisome, even if it's no longer a factor of 2
> or whatever it was. But, again, I'm not sure what is being measured.
> If the difference is because patience diff was used for some files,
> then it's not an apples-to-apples comparison, and a 7% slowdown would
> be no cause for concern.
>
> Since I was curious, I compiled both a version of git from directly
> before your series, and directly after, then added a '*.[ch]
> diff=other' line to the end of .gitattributes, then ran:
>
> $ hyperfine -L a ./older-git,./newer-git '{a} -c
> diff.other.algorithm=myers diff --numstat v2.0.0 v2.28.0'
> Benchmark 1: ./older-git -c diff.other.algorithm=myers diff --numstat
> v2.0.0 v2.28.0
> Time (mean ± σ): 870.2 ms ± 4.4 ms [User: 755.2 ms, System: 109.8 ms]
> Range (min … max): 861.0 ms … 876.8 ms 10 runs
>
> Benchmark 2: ./newer-git -c diff.other.algorithm=myers diff --numstat
> v2.0.0 v2.28.0
> Time (mean ± σ): 876.9 ms ± 4.8 ms [User: 758.0 ms, System: 113.1 ms]
> Range (min … max): 870.7 ms … 884.1 ms 10 runs
>
> Summary
> './older-git -c diff.other.algorithm=myers diff --numstat v2.0.0 v2.28.0' ran
> 1.01 ± 0.01 times faster than './newer-git -c
> diff.other.algorithm=myers diff --numstat v2.0.0 v2.28.0'
>
> I specifically specified 'myers' to match what we'd get from the
> default anyway, so I would only be testing the slowdown from the
> .gitattribute parsing. So, I think the performance overhead comes out
> to just 1% rather than 7% (and further that's when I make it only
> print overall stats about the diff rather than the full diff, since I
> know that's faster. If I didn't do that, the perf hit might appear to
> be less than 1%).
Thanks for taking the time to do this! I should have been a bit more careful
about this benchmark, and more explicit about what it was benchmarking. I just
ran it again and made sure that the same algorithm was used, and I got results
similar to you.
Will update the cover letter, thanks!
