Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Since 'git pack-objects' supports a --path-walk option, allow passing it through in 'git repack'. This presents interesting testing opportunities for comparing the different repacking strategies against each other. Add the --path-walk option to the performance tests in p5313. For the microsoft/fluentui repo [1] checked out at a specific commit [2], the results are very interesting: Test this tree ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5313.2: thin pack 0.40(0.47+0.04) 5313.3: thin pack size 1.2M 5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.09(0.10+0.04) 5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 22.8K 5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.08(0.06+0.02) 5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 20.8K 5313.8: big pack 2.16(8.43+0.23) 5313.9: big pack size 17.7M 5313.10: big pack with --full-name-hash 1.42(3.06+0.21) 5313.11: big pack size with --full-name-hash 18.0M 5313.12: big pack with --path-walk 2.21(8.39+0.24) 5313.13: big pack size with --path-walk 17.8M 5313.14: repack 98.05(662.37+2.64) 5313.15: repack size 449.1K 5313.16: repack with --full-name-hash 33.95(129.44+2.63) 5313.17: repack size with --full-name-hash 182.9K 5313.18: repack with --path-walk 106.21(121.58+0.82) 5313.19: repack size with --path-walk 159.6K [1] https://github.com/microsoft/fluentui [2] e70848ebac1cd720875bccaa3026f4a9ed700e08 This repo suffers from having a lot of paths that collide in the name hash, so examining them in groups by path leads to better deltas. Also, in this case, the single-threaded implementation is competitive with the full repack. This is saving time diffing files that have significant differences from each other. A similar, but private, repo has even more extremes in the thin packs: Test this tree -------------------------------------------------------------- 5313.2: thin pack 2.39(2.91+0.10) 5313.3: thin pack size 4.5M 5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.29(0.47+0.12) 5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 15.5K 5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.35(0.31+0.04) 5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 14.2K Notice, however, that while the --full-name-hash version is working quite well in these cases for the thin pack, it does poorly for some other standard cases, such as this test on the Linux kernel repository: Test this tree -------------------------------------------------------------- 5313.2: thin pack 0.01(0.00+0.00) 5313.3: thin pack size 310 5313.4: thin pack with --full-name-hash 0.00(0.00+0.00) 5313.5: thin pack size with --full-name-hash 1.4K 5313.6: thin pack with --path-walk 0.00(0.00+0.00) 5313.7: thin pack size with --path-walk 310 Here, the --full-name-hash option does much worse than the default name hash, but the path-walk option does exactly as well. Signed-off-by: Derrick Stolee <[email protected]>
- Loading branch information