Hi, On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote: > On Dec 7, 2007 6:37 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote: > > > > > On Dec 7, 2007 1:49 PM, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 7 Dec 2007, Mike Ralphson wrote: > > > > > > > > > I benchmarked 3 alternative qsorts, qsortG [2] was the fastest > > > > > on my system but has funky licensing, the NetBSD qsort was > > > > > middle-range and the glibc one the slowest of the three (but > > > > > that could be due to it being tuned for a "Sun 4/260"). All of > > > > > them show over 100x speed improvements on a git-status of my > > > > > main repo (104s -> ~0.7s) > > > > > > > > Okay, sorry, I did not bother reading further when I read "You may use > > it in anything you like;". > > > > But if the author did not respond, it might be a better idea to just > > reimplement it. > > > > I've just tried the mergesort implementation as used in msysgit and that > performs faster for me. It's simpler, and compatibly licensed. It looks > good. Now I'm confused. You said you tested qsortG, NetBSD qsort and qlibc, with glibc performing the slowest. Now, 4msysgit's implementation is based on glibc (Thanks Brian!), so I wonder if you could redo the performance tests and say if qsortG still is substantially faster than 4msysgit's qsort? Ciao, Dscho - 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
