Subject: Re: RFC: Flat directory for notes, or fan-out? Both!

From: "Shawn O. Pearce" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 08:48:09 -0800

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I could do a revert on 'master' if it is really needed, but I found that
> the above reasoning is a bit troublesome.  The thing is, if a tree to hold
> the notes would be huge to be unmanageable, then it would still be huge to
> be unmanageable if you split it into 256 pieces.
> 
> I'd rather prefer to see us first try to find a way to optimze the tree
> parser.  Maybe packv4 or Linus's binary search (which IIRC you declared
> would not work --- I recall I once thought about it myself but I do not
> recall what my conclusions were) play a role in it.

packv4 as proposed wouldn't help a notes tree.  It relied on the fact
that we'd have no more than 64k unique file names in a repository,
and any name which overflowed that 64k limit would force its tree
to be a canonical format tree, which is what we are trying to
avoid here.

-- 
Shawn.