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

Re: Node origins cache rewrite

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:20:11 -0500

On Jan 27, 2008 12:10 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 8:43 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > If there was no fallback would you take the performance hit (which is
> > huge on your repository) or do the dump/load? Both options are so
> > bad, that I was suggesting it might be worth the effort to possibly
> > support both options to give a better upgrade path.
>
> If doing a dump-load would give us remarkably better disk usage, ya,
> we'd do that. But, AIUI, that's not the case here, is it? That's
> only if a hypothetical separate 'node origin cache' were to be
> introduced separated from the per-inode one glasser just committed,
> right?

Glasser has proposed an alternative system that would remove the need
for the cache. But this would require a dump/load for existing
repositories. Compared to 1.4, your repository size would stay the
same. The problem is that if you do not dump/load, then the code
needs to crawl the repository to get the same information. This is
really slow.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-01-27 18:20:27 CET

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