Hi, On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Irving wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Johannes Schindelin > <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Geoffrey Irving wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Johannes Schindelin > >> <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > Another issue that just hit me: this cache is append-only, so if it > >> > grows too large, you have no other option than to scratch and > >> > recreate it. Maybe this needs porcelain support, too? (git gc?) > >> > >> If so, the correct operation is to go through the hash and remove > >> entries that refer to commits that no longer exist. I can add this > >> if you want. Hopefully somewhere along the way git-gc constructs an > >> easy to traverse list of extant commits, and this will be > >> straightforward. > > > > I don't know... if you have created a cached patch-id for every commit > > (by mistake, for example) and do not need it anymore, it might make > > git-cherry substantially faster to just scrap the cache. > > Well, ideally hash maps are O(1), but it could be a difference between a > "compare 40 bytes" constant and a "read a 4k block into memory" > constant, so in practice yes. Scrapping it entirely will also make the > implementation much simpler. > > It seems a little sad to wipe all that effort each time, but > regenerating the cache is likely to be less expensive than a git-gc, so > it shouldn't change any amortized complexities. Well, how about only scrapping the cache if it is older than, say, 2 weeks, and is larger than, say, 200kB? That should help. 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
