On Apr 13, 2005, at 20:17, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>
>> Ah, so it seems that you want to implement inverse logic.
>>
>> The logic should be:
>>
>> if (versioned && has-no-lock-token)
>> if (svn:needs-lock is present)
>> show "should lock" overlay
>>
>> But you want to do
>>
>> if (versioned && has-no-lock-token)
>> if (readonly)
>> show "should lock" overlay.
>>
>> But as cmpilato pointed out, those logics aren't equivalent. A file
>> can be read-only for other reasons besides the existence of
>> svn:needs-lock. Is this going to cause problems? I forsee lots of
>> false positives here. Is it worth the performance tradeoff?
>
> Steve, is there any way you can quantify the performance hits we're
> talking about? Tweak TSVN to do the property checks, and see how it
> really affects things, ya know?
This is yet another problem that the depth API will help solve.
Here are the performance number I did back in oct 2004.
I'd love to know if TSVN sees similar performance.
On Oct 30, 2004, at 11:53, Barry Scott wrote:
> I have created a test program test_propval.cpp in
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/pysvn/trunk/pysvn/Extension/Patches
>
> I run the program in the Patches directory with the command line
>
> test_propval readme.txt 100
>
> Running on a 600MHz Mandrake 9.2 system I get:
>
> Time for 100 calls 170ms
> Time for 1 call 1ms
>
> Running on a 1GHz Windows XP SP1 systems with Norton
> anti-virus enabled:
>
> Time for 100 calls 2423ms
> Time for 1 call 24ms
>
> Running on a 1GHz Windows XP SP1 systems with Norton
> anti-virus disabled:
>
> Time for 100 calls 1392ms
> Time for 1 call 13ms
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 14 23:14:59 2005