On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 7:04 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2008, Lars Hjemli wrote: > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> But please take into account that gitweb performance, and I guess any > >> git web interface performance, is I/O bound and not CPU bound (at least > >> according to what I remember from J.H. emails). So a little more > >> processing is I think less important than avoiding hitting the repos. > > > > Yeah, that's a pretty convincing argument for "cache the data, not the > > output", at least for gitweb (cgit never touches the repos to generate > > the project list/search). > > First, this is less argument for "cache data" against "cache output", > only against disregarding "cache data" for assumed performance reasons, > while it "cache data" can be useful in some places. Ok, then I misinterpreted your argument. > Second, gitweb's projects list page contains "Last Changed" column, > and you _*have*_ to hit repositories for this data No you don't. One alternative is to use the post-update hook in each repo to update a separate file with info about last-changed-time. Another (less accurate) alternative is to stat one or more of packed-refs and refs/heads/*; cgit uses both of these alternatives to avoid hitting the repo (i.e. object-db) when the project list/search page is generated. -- larsh -- 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
