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

Re: [PATCH] Execute groups of log-files, was (Re: Improving the performance of libsvn_wc for checkouts/updates/switches)

From: Josh Pieper <jjp_at_pobox.com>
Date: 2004-05-23 19:39:30 CEST

Philip Martin wrote:
> > @@ -2083,6 +2153,19 @@
> > /* If a conflict happens, then the entry will be
> > marked "Conflicted" and will track either 2 or 3 new
> > temporary fulltext files that resulted. */
> Is the above comment now redundant?

Well, my new comment doesn't really state it, but I suppose it can go.

> > +
> > + /* Run a dry-run of the merge to see if a conflict will
> > + occur. This is needed so we can report back to the
> > + client as the changes come in. */
> > + base = svn_wc_adm_access_path (adm_access);
> > +
> > + SVN_ERR (svn_wc_merge (svn_path_join (base, txtb, pool),
> > + svn_path_join (base, tmp_txtb, pool),
> > + svn_path_join (base, base_name, pool),
> > + adm_access,
> > + oldrev_str, newrev_str, ".mine",
> > + TRUE, &merge_outcome, diff3_cmd,
> > + pool));
> This is a bit unfortunate. I think I see what you are doing, the old
> code could examine the wc state to get this information but in the new
> code the notification callback is called before the log file is run.
> A dry-run merge can be time consuming when dealing with large files,
> although since only files with local mods are affected I guess it may
> not be too bad in practice. I don't know if there are any
> alternatives, I guess it's difficult to postpone the notification
> callback.

Yeah, I thought about it some too and decided that a constant factor
extra merge per file with local mods was probably worth it to drop the
O(n^2) behavior. I imagine more people will run into the checkout of
a large directory than would run into having many large files with
local mods. And at worst the latter half would be only twice as slow.
The former could easily be many orders of magnitude slower.

> Have you tested over ra_dav? I recall we had problems in the past
> with wcprops during an interrupted update, although I can't remember
> the exact details. It's possible we made the wcprops code robust
> enough for this change to work.

No I haven't. Is the editor somehow driven differently via ra_dav
that would cause different problems? Was there an issue, and can you
remember it?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 23 19:39:48 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.