[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees |
Date: |
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 23:57:49 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 03:46:22PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
>
> > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
>
> >> Such optimizations require a fairly heavy proof before we can
> >> trust them: they must prove that the apply_changeset algorithm
> >> is invarient under them. You haven't offered such a proof for
> >> your variation and, in fact, your proposal to specially
> >> consider only modified or deleted files is flat out wrong.
>
> > What's wrong with it?
>
> Who knows the full list of things that are wrong with it but a subset
> of that list includes consideration of adds (to avoid redundant adds)
> and consideration of renames (both the things being renamed and their
> (recursively) containing directories, bearing in mind that the
> changeset is not guaranteed but is permitted to contain index entries
> for those containing directories).
Sure, renames would probably have to be treated like adds, and cause a
full scan (although I don't know that for sure, it's not so
obviously-safe so I'm not prepared to go there).
It seems fairly obvious to me that deletes and file-patches are safe
though: they operate only on a single logical file, and if we know
what the path to that file is, why do we care where all the other
files are?
I find a demand for proof of this rather like a demand for proof that
1 + 2 == 3 - it's so obviously true that I'm not sure how to start,
and the request makes me wonder if an axiom is missing or rejected.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Chris Mason, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees,
Andrew Suffield <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Chris Mason, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Chris Mason, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Andrew Suffield, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Tom Lord, 2003/12/19
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Chris Mason, 2003/12/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Chris Mason, 2003/12/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees, Miles Bader, 2003/12/24