[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Apparent "svn rm" scaling problem in 1.7.x

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2011 18:44:29 +0000

Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:

> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 06:29:59PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
>> I put in the ORDER BY to preserve the parents before children
>> notification used by 1.6. I wonder if that notification order is
>> important?
>
> See r1196191.
> It should preserve the 1.6.x order (via svn_path_compare_paths()).
>
>> A patch that we could commit without affecting the order is:
>>
>> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql
>> ===================================================================
>> --- subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql (revision 1196106)
>> +++ subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql (working copy)
>> @@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@
>> CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE delete_list (
>> /* ### we should put the wc_id in here in case a delete spans multiple
>> ### working copies. queries, etc will need to be adjusted. */
>> - local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL
>> + local_relpath TEXT PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL UNIQUE
>> )
>
> Interesting. Can you explain why this doesn't affect order?

Because I retained ORDER BY in the select statement.

> I guess this works because there is only one column in the table?
> Do UNIQUE columns happen to be inserted, or selected, in sorted order?

UNIQUE simple means that an index is created so the ORDER BY is fast.

-- 
Philip
Received on 2011-11-01 19:45:07 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.