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

Re: Property storage / modification in WC-NG

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 13:34:51 -0400

On 03/16/2011 01:17 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:59, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> ...
>> to manage at least the "read" subset of these operations. But I find myself
>> wondering if we wouldn't be better served by having a properties table with
>> rows for, I dunno: wc_id, local_relpath, property_name, property_value.
>> ...
>> Was this considered when we moved the properties into the database? If so,
>> why didn't we take this approach? Should we consider it now? Should we
>> punt it to 1.8?
> It was considered. Hyrum and I figured it would be best to use a skel
> and avoid a join. We assumed it is the rare case that we need a single
> property, rather than some/all of the properties.
> If you want to experiment with another table and a JOIN, then I would
> recommend waiting until 1.8 to do that. If we find that properties in
> their current form are killing us, then we can discuss further.
> My understanding is that # queries is our concern at the moment,
> rather than skel-unpacking.
> Cheers,
> -g

Thanks for the background, Greg.

It's definitely number-of-queries that I'm thinking about here, too.

I'm *not* concerned about the pure cost of mere skel-unpacking. It's more
that because properties aren't first-class citizens in the schema, we have
to trade what could be a single statement:

   "Go add/change the prop/val pair FOO=BAR on every path at or under

into a one-at-a-time, many-statements approach:

   "for PATH1, read it's properties skel, parse the skel, set FOO=BAR in
   its propset, re-skel-ify, and update the skel; now do that for PATH2,
   whose resulting skel won't necessarily be the same as PATH1's; now do it
   for PATH3..."

Even when just reading properties, our best option is to read the whole
property set for chunks of files/dirs, and then immedately throw out all the
properties we don't care about. With a purer bit of relation in the schema
for properties, these queries get simpler and waste less intermediate memory.

-- C-Mike

(PS: Happy birthday!)

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2011-03-16 18:35:26 CET

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.