On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 12:39:05PM -0400, Bob Cardillo wrote:
> Thanks for all great info so far!
> >Taking that query out reduces the read() calls back to 99. Do we need
> >another SQLite index? Can we improve that query?
> Your index idea was a good one. I used sqlite3 to back up my wc.db,
> then ran the query you found, filling in the parameters as appropriate
> and commenting out the use of IS_STRCT_DESCENDENT() since that is a
> custom function that I didn't have on hand. Running it with .timer ON I
> found that the query takes 4.15s to run on average. I then created an
> index like this:
> CREATE INDEX bobindex1 ON nodes (kind, presence, op_depth)
> and now the query consistently takes 0.27s. Really good news! But I
> wonder if improving the query is a better solution, or at least should
> ALSO be done. For one thing, it seems that running "svn status" on just
> a file should implicitly behave as if the --non-recursive flag had been
> specified, shouldn't it?
> So I think I'm going to add that index to my actual wc.db to work around
> the problem myself, but I still think an issue should be created to
> provide a permanent fix. (And I think the permanent fix would be three
> things: the index, the implicit --non-recursive behavior for files, and
> possibly the query optimization if someone can come up with an
> Can I get a "buddy" on this? Thanks again!
Yes, please file an issue so we don't lose track of this.
I don't know for certain which way we'll go on this yet but this sounds
very promising. Thanks a lot for your help.
Received on 2012-05-07 16:48:04 CEST