Robert Pluim wrote:
>Philip Martin writes:
> > I have just read your attachment, and I don't know what to think.
> > It's appears to be simply the same rough ideas as before. This time
> > with a claim that it will improve some unspecified quantity by 30%.
> > Amazing! I wish I could predict the behaviour of code that has not
> > been written with the same accuracy. I suppose if you don't specify
> > what you are measuring it gets a bit easier...
>
>As a case in point, I got a bee in my bonnet last week about the fact
>that 'svn status' sometimes stats the same file multiple times in a
>row, and implemented a stat-caching method. When I measured it, it
>turned out that the overhead of a) caching a stat entry and b)
>figuring out that you could reuse it was the same as just re-statting.
>
On your particular system. Tbese things vary between operating systems,
file systems, etc. etc. Reducing the number of system calls is *almost*
always a good thing. But, I expect we're still far from the point where
saving a stat or two will make a measurable difference in speed.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 2 23:52:47 2003