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

RE: text-base penalty: A proposed solution

From: Kean Johnston <jkj_at_sco.com>
Date: 2002-12-17 10:00:16 CET

> Okay. With these details, this is much more clear to me. I
> understand it is a real problem for you. And the same for the
> inodes to some extent.
*whew* :)

You know I must be honest, one of the things that I really LIKE
about this list is that people don't take things on faith and
make me really question myself and analyse the situation. I think
debate is very healthy and in the long run, can only be useful,
so thanks :)

I am still intrigued by the idea of using a DB for the admin area.
It would reduce the inode count (although as you pointed out it
can be A problem, just not a HUGE one), but more importantly, it
will help speed up directory traversal. It may make some things
fractionally slower, like local diffs and commits, because if
ALL files (including a full text base) are in the database then
you first need to extract it from the db to run diff on it, but
that penalty is fairly small (my gut tells me).

I am going to spend a few days going through the WC code with
a fine tooth comb, to better judge just how destabalizing it
would be to add the multi-method approach I mentioned in my
original mail. I think once we understand the real impact as
opposed to the perceived impact, that we will be better armed
to make a decision.

If anyone else wants to do this along side of me, that would
be great. Two sets of eyes are always better than one, and
three are better than two.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 17 10:00:57 2002

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