Branko =?UTF-8?B?xIxpYmVq?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>
> >I would suggest rolling back tree.c to 1279 and removing the #define
> >from svn_fs.h (effectively removing the buffering code altogether),
> >and therefore the filesystem is never trying to guess at best-case
> >buffering behavior (which it can't possible know). If the clients are
> >writing directly into the strings table, they can (theoretically)
> >choose to send differently size chunks of data into the window
> >consumer returned by svn_fs_apply_textdelta(), and therefore have full
> >control over their own performance in this area!
>
> Wouldn't it make sense to at least buffer the writes to a multiple of
> the db page size?
Well, this would add more complexity to the code. As is, the buffer
limit is really just a trigger: if data_size > buffer_limit, then
dump everything we've read to the database. That's different than
dumping buffer_size to data, memmoving the leftover, etc.
> Or make the buffer the same size as the currently hard-coded delta
> windows?
No sense in that. Right now, we can pretty much guarantee that the
incoming data is coming in chunks of roughly-delta-window-size or
less, where less means we're at the end of a given file's data. Might
as well turn off the buffering altogether, I think.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:10 2006