Subject: Re: git and larger trees, not so fast?

From: moe <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:30:46 +0200

On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 10:06:30PM +0200, moe wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2007 at 11:47:42AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, moe wrote:
> > > 
> > > here's a test-case (should be safe to
> > > copy/paste on linux, bash):
> > 
> > moe: with current git (and thus the 1.5.3 release), the "git status" 
> > commands now take half a second for me, and the git commit takes just 
> > under a second.
> > 
> > The *initial* commit that adds everything still takes almost 5 seconds, 
> > but that was due to generating the diffstat summary - with a "-q" on the 
> > commit line that too drops down to just under a second.
> > 
> > In fact, the only thing that took more than a second for me with the 
> > current git is that initial "git add .", which took 1.791s for me. 
> > Considering that it had to hash all the 100,000 objects, I'm not 
> > surprised.
> > 
> > Anyway, it would be good if you re-did your real work tree with current 
> > commit, just to verify. You have slower hardware than I do, but hopefully 
> > it is now just about as fast as it can be.
>  
> hi linus,
> 
> thx for your efforts, the figures look very promising.
> i'm out of town right now but will test when i get
> stationary internet again (sometime tomorrow evening
> i think).

sorry for late followup, i was blocked on paid work
for longer than i expected.

i can happily confirm what others have already reported;
with the patches applied git works well even for my
bigger repo.

git status              : 0m1.036s
git commit (single file): 0m1.846s

http://www.gosimpsons.com/ProdImages/krustysealkeychain.jpg

regards, moe