| 1 |
On 1/15/10, Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> > "git commit <dir>" and "git status <dir>" still do full tree lstat(). |
| 3 |
> > I can try to make a patch or two to reduce lstat() in such cases. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> That would definitely compliment the --stat option to git diff et al, |
| 8 |
> making git more usable on repos with a huge no. of files. Now that I |
| 9 |
> think about it, why does git <command> <dir> need to do a full tree |
| 10 |
> stat at all? Doesn't the added specification of <dir> mean "I'm only |
| 11 |
> interested in this dir for this command, other stuff doesn't matter"? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Probably because the difference is too small to notice on smaller-size |
| 14 |
projects, or because people tend to do whole-tree operations so "git |
| 15 |
<command> <dir>"'s performance does not catch the developers' eyes. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Anyway, stat()ing 80k files takes about 1 second on my machine, still |
| 18 |
tolerable. There is whole-tree open() in "git status" to check for |
| 19 |
untracked files, that contributes more on "git status" slowness. How |
| 20 |
long on average did a Git operation take on your tmpfs? |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Duy |
Archives