You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by cm...@collab.net on 2002/06/28 07:07:19 UTC
Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Here are some timings I took of my current not-yet-committed work.
First, I `svnadmin dump'ed the first 2000 revisions of a copy of the
Subversion source code repository, into a dumpfile.
Then, I `svnadmin load'ed that dumpfile into two new repositories, one
using the filesystem code as it exists in /trunk today (which has no
`changes' database in it), and one using the filesystem code as it
exists in /branches/issue-745-dev + local mods (which, of course, has
a `changed' table, is populating it).
without `changes' - 20:10.70 elapsed
with `changes' - 21:19.66 elapsed
Okay, that's good news. That means that despite the fact that every
time you modify a transaction we are now writing an additional
database row, it really isn't hurting us that much in the scheme of
things. What is that, something like a 5% speed decrease over 2000
revisions?
Next, I ran `svn log --verbose' on both of the new repositories, to
see a) if the new printing of changed paths worked, and b) how the
speeds compared. Well, I diff'd the outputs of the two runs, and
there was ONE LINE of difference -- looks like a small bug in the new
code, where something printed a 'U' instead of a 'D' for a path that
got deleted. WOW!
Now the times (are you sitting down)?
without `changes' - 5:01.21 elapsed /* ick! */
with `changes' - 0:01.87 elapsed
Oh. My. Gosh. That's under 2 seconds for 2000 revisions worth of
change paths and log messages!!! I ran the thing a few more times
just to make sure, and sure enough, under 2 seconds each time.
Just for kicks, I ran it over DAV (using localhost). Multiple runs,
between 2.8 and 3.2 seconds, for 2000 revisions, changed-paths + logs.
Wow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
cmpilato@collab.net writes:
[...]
> Next, I ran `svn log --verbose' on both of the new repositories, to
> see a) if the new printing of changed paths worked, and b) how the
> speeds compared. Well, I diff'd the outputs of the two runs, and
> there was ONE LINE of difference -- looks like a small bug in the new
> code, where something printed a 'U' instead of a 'D' for a path that
> got deleted. WOW!
Heh, as it turns out, the one line of difference that occured was
actually the RIGHT thing. It was the current `svn log' that was
broken. I checked my dumpfile, and in revision 1591 the
/tags/0.10.0/trunk directory was *replaced*, not deleted. The svn
client currently has a bug though, where the log receiver shows a 'U'
for all items that should be an 'R'. So the bug that exists is in
client, as well as in the current server.
Sweet!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Posted by cm...@collab.net.
brane@xbc.nu writes:
> Quoting cmpilato@collab.net:
> > Now the times (are you sitting down)?
> >
> > without `changes' - 5:01.21 elapsed /* ick! */
> > with `changes' - 0:01.87 elapsed
>
> I say, this is starting to be useful, what?
> Let's hear it for designing a schema before implementing it! :-)
>
> Brane
[thunderous applause]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Posted by br...@xbc.nu.
Quoting cmpilato@collab.net:
> Now the times (are you sitting down)?
>
> without `changes' - 5:01.21 elapsed /* ick! */
> with `changes' - 0:01.87 elapsed
I say, this is starting to be useful, what?
Let's hear it for designing a schema before implementing it! :-)
Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> Now the times (are you sitting down)?
>
> without `changes' - 5:01.21 elapsed /* ick! */
> with `changes' - 0:01.87 elapsed
>
> Oh. My. Gosh. That's under 2 seconds for 2000 revisions worth of
> change paths and log messages!!! I ran the thing a few more times
> just to make sure, and sure enough, under 2 seconds each time.
Holy ZAMBONI, Batman!
I *was* sitting down, but I fell anyway.
Congratulations!
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Issues #745 and #690 are nearly finished.
Posted by Daniele Nicolodi <da...@grinta.net>.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 02:07:19AM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
[cut]
Very good but ... how have you taken this times ??
The second benchmark (impressive) don-t need precise mesurements but
i think that the first, for the time that it use and for the small
difference need more accuracy. Can you use time command for this work ?
Ciao
--
Daniele
--- http://www.grinta.net ---
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org