Here's an updated patch based on the current HEAD, and with
one or two minor improvements. While, as stated, the patch
can give many-fold speed increases for ideal cases, it also slows
down the LCS algorithm significantly for poorly matching files; I
got about 18% increase in running time on my system for files
that were very poor matches but had no lines unique to either file.
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Morten Kloster <morklo_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Speeds up LCS algorithm for well-separated sections of change
> By exploiting unique matches between the two files, it is possible to
> "restart" the LCS algorithm at times and reset the buildup of square
> computational complexity.
> * subversion/libsvn_diff/lcs.c
> (svn_diff__snake_t): Added uniquematchcount member.
> (svn_diff__snake): Increments uniquematchcount each time
> a matching token occurs only once in each file.
> (clear_fp): New method that removes nonviable states.
> (svn_diff__lcs): Restarts LCS algorithm from p=0 if the number
> of unique matches exceeds the number of mismatches, using
> the first state where that occurs as the new start state.
> This patch is a partial implementation of a possible enhancement to
> the LCS algorithm. The patch builds on the patch in the thread
> "[PATCH] Speed-up of libsvn_diff using token counts". I have only
> included the lcs.c file in this patch; the other files in that other patch
> must already be patched.
> Theory behind the enhancement:
> If the number of unique matches - tokens that only occur once in each
> file - so far found exceeds the number of mismatches so far, and this
> is the FIRST time that happens, then we are guaranteed that that
> state is part of the true LCS, since eliminating some number of the
> mismatches will necessarily add more new mismatches among the
> current unique matches. We can thus "start over" from the current
> state and thus stop the build-up of computational complexity
> represented by the 'p' variable. By resetting also the number
> of unique matches found to 0, we can repeat this process many
> This implementation is partial in the sense that it does not reach the
> full potential of the enhancement. It will still scan at least 'd' states
> for each value of 'p', whereas an optimal implementation would
> interrupt the scan if there's a mismatch for what would have been
> a unique match (since this always make the potential LCS worse,
> regardless of whether the change is an insertion or a deletion).
> However, a full implementation will be significantly more complicated,
> as far as I can see.
> The current implementation can reduce the average computational
> complexity from O((p_max + d)*p_max) to O(sum((p_n + d)*p_n)),
> while an optimal implementation would be O(sum((p_n + d_n)*p_n)).
> p_max is here the total number of mismatches in the shorter file,
> while p_n and d_n are the lesser number of mismatches and the
> length difference between the files within each area of difference that
> is separated from other areas of difference by a large number of
> (not necessarily contiguous) unique matches. The current version
> is only really useful if there is a similar number of mismatches in
> each file, i.e. if there is a similar number of insertions and deletions
> (not counting tokens that are unique to one of the files).
> Johan: I initially thought it would be easiest to give unique matches
> higher weight in the diff algorithm. This would have meant a change
> in the definition of the optimal diff - rather than asking for simply the
> largest number of matching tokes, we would prefer diffs with slightly
> fewer total matches but more unique matches. It would not be a
> heuristic, since we would still be a guaranteed optimal diff given the
> new optimality criterion, but it would no longer be an LCS.
> However, it turned out to be easier to keep the same weights.
> The patch will need significant changes to integrate with the idx
> patch (also libsvn_diff speed-up). The current version doesn't give
> much speed improvement for most of my tests so far, but can
> give very large improvements for "ideal" cases (many small areas
> of non-unique changes that are separated by many unique matches,
> and where the files are of equal length).
> I'm not sure whether or not the current version (integrated with idx)
> is worthwhile or not. I'll look into making a full implementation of the
Received on 2011-06-07 22:17:10 CEST