hg performance

[Dustin Sallings]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 9:36 , Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:

> Okay, I was joking about the fast-import.

	My mistake, but it obviously wouldn't surprise me if such a thing  
existed.  On my system, git has 140 subcommands vs. hg's 74 (with  
bisect, mq, graphlog, and patchbomb enabled).  Many people thought  
tla's 114 was obscene.

> Of course add+commit should be as fast as possible (however adding  
> 80k files isn't something you do every day, so that shouldn't be  
> such a big issue).

	Sure, but my primary point was to dispel the notion that git is the  
fastest piece of software ever written.  My first attempt to use git  
showed it considerably slower.  People believe git is fast, and I  
believe hg is fast.  It may just be that in real use there isn't one  
that's noticeably faster than the other.

> I'll see if I can reproduce this issue and then bring it up on the  
> git mailinglist.  If not, I'll come back to you.

	OK.  I'm hoping to avoid the ``use a better filesystem'' types of  
arguments.

-- 
Dustin Sallings