hg performance

[Dustin Sallings]

  This is one of the problems I'm having with git.  In hg, I can do the same thing on a small tree or a large tree and get acceptable performance.  I didn't think to look for a different command to use for a larger tree.  I mean, why don't they just make the small tree command reasonably fast?

  Git took about seven minutes for an add+commit.  Hg took about two.  Perhaps there's a way to make git faster, but that's certainly not a selling point.  git is starting to look like gnu arch to me.

------Original Message------
From: Simon 'corecode' Schubert
To: Giorgos Keramidas
Cc: Dustin Sallings
Cc: Mercurial List
Sent: Aug 14, 2007 07:38
Subject: Re: hg performance

Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> You are right, of course.  The 'ADD' was quoted because it was done
> with 'hg commit -A' to match Git's behavior.  I don't remember if I
> turned off diffstat output, but that's a good point :-)

Ah.  Of course you should use git-fast-import with the import-tar frontend for initial huge tree imports :)

cheers
  simon




-- 
Dustin mobile.