On 12/7/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > > > > time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/video/gcc$ time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null > > > > real 1m21.967s > > user 1m21.329s > > Well, I was also hoping for a "compared to not-so-aggressive packing" > number on the same machine.. IOW, what I was wondering is whether there is > a visible performance downside to the deeper delta chains in the 300MB > pack vs the (less aggressive) 500MB pack.
Same machine with a default pack [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$ ls -l total 2145716 -r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 23667932 2007-12-07 02:03 pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.idx -r--r--r-- 1 jonsmirl jonsmirl 2171385413 2007-12-07 02:03 pack-bd163555ea9240a7fdd07d2708a293872665f48b.pack [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/video/gcc/.git/objects/pack$ Delta lengths have virtually no impact. The bigger pack file causes more IO which offsets the increased delta processing time. One of my rules is smaller is almost always better. Smaller eliminates IO and helps with the CPU cache. It's like the kernel being optimized for size instead of speed ending up being faster. time git blame -C gcc/regclass.c > /dev/null real 1m19.289s user 1m17.853s sys 0m0.952s > > Linus > -- Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
