Daniel Berlin <dan@dberlin.org> writes:
> Buzz.
> reps-strings.c:svn_fs__rep_deltify
> ...
>
> /* To favor time over space, we don't currently deltify files that
> are larger than the svndiff window size. This might seem
> counterintuitive, but most files are smaller than a window
> anyway, and until we write the delta combiner or something
> approaching it, the cost of retrieval for large files becomes
> simply prohibitive after about 10 or so revisions. See issue
> #531 for more details. */
>
> Window size == SVN_STREAM_CHUNK_SIZE.
*blink* *blink*. When did THAT happen?! Sorry, Daniel, that just
wasn't our behavior the last time I was in that code, unless my brain
is seriously failing me.
Wow. So, yeah, your results make a lot more sense to me now! :-)
> > Are the sizes of log-files factored into the values?
>
> No.
> Those numbers are only the strings table size anyway.
Xlnt.
> > In my opinion,
> > the only size values worth comparing are the sizes of the strings
> > table.
>
> [root@danberlin db]# ls -l
> ...
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2354819072 Feb 8 07:45 strings
Heh heh. That just looks funny.
> > I'd love to re-create your test locally and do some poking around in
> > the results, if that's possible. Is your setup available for snarfing
> > online somewhere?
>
> rsync the gcc-cvs repository (600 meg), use cvs2svn.py (with patches to
> make it work right) to convert egcs/gcc/cp to an svn repository
Well, now that I know that we're just not deltifying files >
window_size, I'm not so interested in playing with the results.
That's just plain *wrongness* in our code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:05 2006