On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 6:47 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:43:46PM -0500, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> 2011/3/11 Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si>:
>>> > For the second task, I think the first order of business is to change
>>> > the wc-db tree crawler to do one query instead of zillions, or at least,
>>> > where several queries are required, to do them all in one transaction.
>>> stsp has been working this recently. Killing the node walker, and
>>> moving to table scans.
>> Yes. So far, I've been working in the revision status code.
>> There are two problems left to fix before I'll move on to the next task:
>> - There are API layering issues (wc_db.c calls into node.c).
>> This is related to the API discussions in the other thread
>> so I'll follow up there.
> Before reading this thread, I saw the call into node.c, and have
> subsequently removed it.
>> - The revision status code issues about 5 separate queries,
>> which aren't combined via a transaction and don't use temporary tables.
>> This is no worse than the previous code using the node walker,
>> obviously :) But I'll look at fixing this so that the results
>> returned correspond to the state of the DB as of the time the
>> svn_wc__db_revision_status() call was made.
> I wrapped this API in a txn in r1081510.
>> For others who want to jump in and help, here is a list of places
>> where the node walker is still being used. I'm not sure if we can
>> eliminate it everywhere before release, but each of these should
>> be looked at to see whether we can use an alternative approach to
>> increase performance:
>> (This should be propget and propset. Proplist is already using
>> queries involving temporary tables. Rewriting propget on top
>> of the proplist code would be easy.
Is anyone working on propget? I'll take stab at that if not. It
would be useful for dealing with merge.c:merge_reintegrate_locked's
use of svn_wc__node_walk_children().
>> Propset needs more work.)
> I'll take a gander at some of these, too. (But I'm not entirely sure
> what I' gandering at or for...)
Received on 2011-03-15 23:37:24 CET