[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so go
From: |
Jason McCarty |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good |
Date: |
Sun, 28 Sep 2003 18:57:34 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
I suppose at this point it would be most fruitful to place some
differently-arranged summaries in a big tree, and determine how each
algorithm would perform given random sets of pristines and goals.
This could be done abstractly, or in a real tree, with the cost metric
being numbers of deltas applied or total delta size, respectively.
Cachedrevs may or may not be present, but I would probably only put them
with continuations.
Evaluation criteria would be how close to optimal the resultant path is,
and how many revisions it had to examine to find its solution.
Possible placements of summaries include:
1. Every Nth revision, spanning N revisions. Place a summary every N^2
revisions as well (to summarize the summaries). Extra points for
varying the length (density) of summaries dependent on local
revision size. This is the case my algorithm is designed to
exploit, and SPF should do well here too, but I suspect it will
have to examine more revisions.
2. Random placement and length of summaries. This is an unlikely
placement strategy, but SPF might perform better on it.
3. I dunno, whatever else you can think of that sounds like an optimal
placement strategy. As I mentioned before, I think (1) is nearly
optimal regardless of algorithm.
Hopefully an evaluation like this can tell us how accurate our
respective intuitions are.
Jason
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good,
Jason McCarty <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Alexander Deruwe, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Anderson, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Miles Bader, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: situations where cached revisions are not so good, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/24
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] situations where cached revisions are not so good, Robert Collins, 2003/09/24