[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Progress report on git-blame
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Progress report on git-blame |
Date: |
Sat, 25 Jan 2014 21:31:36 +0200 |
> From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 19:59:50 +0100
>
> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Some random data points:
> >
> > $ time git blame -L 1000,+100 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
> >
> > real 0m11.034s
> > user 0m10.417s
> > sys 0m0.599s
> >
> >
> > $ time git blame -L 1000,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
> >
> > real 0m15.089s
> > user 0m14.297s
> > sys 0m0.767s
For the record, I get about 9 sec for the first of these and about 12
sec for the second.
> > It seems that there is not a lot of a difference among blaming 20 lines
> > and blaming 1000.
>
> It very much depends on _which_ lines. Basically, lines forming a block
> sticking together when doing a unified diff are not all that expensive
> since they travel in a single data structure. The worst are lots of
> small changes introduced in different branches.
I tried this:
time git blame -L 270,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
(you will see that around those line numbers, there's a different
commit every couple of lines), and got
real 0m11.484s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.000s
A few more examples:
$ time git blame -L 2523,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m15.000s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time git blame -L 9630,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m10.985s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.015s
$ time git blame -L 10997,+1000 -- src/xdisp.c > /dev/null
real 0m15.172s
user 0m0.015s
sys 0m0.016s
So these times are fairly typical for xdisp.c. Which is not
surprising, since xdisp.c sees a lot of changes, and thus there's
another commit every few lines almost anywhere you look.
- Progress report on git-blame (was: RFC - cleaning up /etc), (continued)
- Progress report on git-blame (was: RFC - cleaning up /etc), David Kastrup, 2014/01/24
- Re: Progress report on git-blame (was: RFC - cleaning up /etc), Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, martin rudalics, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Lars Ingebrigtsen, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, David Kastrup, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Aneesh Kumar K.V, 2014/01/26
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/27
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Óscar Fuentes, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/25
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/01/26
- Re: Progress report on git-blame, Stefan Monnier, 2014/01/26