[PATCH 00 of 10] RFC: Light-Weight Copy
cryo at cyanite.org
Thu Sep 9 03:35:27 CDT 2010
On 09-09-2010 09:31, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 21:48, Sune Foldager<cryo at cyanite.org> wrote:
>> Apart from the above, the patches are pretty much finished, as I see it. I would like to
>> make some minor changes, e.g. rename the 'lwcopy' metadata to 'copylw' to align with the
>> other two copy-related keys, maybe rename a few methods and similar.
> Do we have any benchmarks for this?
For the above paragraph or for the patch queue as a whole? And what
benchmarks, speed, space..?
For very small files, the repository size actually increases by using
lwcopy, but, coming to think of it, it would be easy to store such
entries without lwcopy to avoid this slight regression; it mainly
affects the test suite, I think.
As for performance in general, there are a few more indirections in the
general revlog code path, and a bit more still for filelog, although for
non-copy entries it amounts to about 2-3 indirect calls. For copy
entries there is some repacking when receiving changegroups, and some
partial repacking when adding local changesets. Among other things this
can require twice the memory for file data storage. I believe there is
room for slight improvement in this area.
Otherwise, I haven't done any speed or memory testing.
More information about the Mercurial-devel