Re: optimizing fsfs: reverse diffs?
From: Alan Grow <agrow_at_thegotonerd.com>
Date: 2005-04-09 05:43:20 CEST
Mark,
Thanks for the design info, that helps a lot. So under FSFS a checkout of the latest revision takes O(lg(N)) on avg instead of O(N) as I had assumed. Still, if you always stored the latest revision of a file in full & stored the transactions as reverse diffs, checkout latest would be an O(1) operation. Even better.
One could certainly cook up a skip-delta scheme for this. Each skip-delta path terminates in a full copy of the file. A commit overwrites this copy, but not before a reverse delta is added behind it. Perhaps the real problem is more of an architectural clash; I can't say because I'm not an svn developer.
It just seems to me that checkouts may not be as optimized for the common case as they could be. As an svn admin & very interested follower of the project, I've heard "checkouts are slow" quite a lot, and know of at least one large opensource project (open exchange) that have delayed their migration to svn until things improve in that department.
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 11:03:24AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
-- Alan Grow Software Engineer / Opensource Consultant 402-304-0568 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.orgReceived on Fri Apr 8 18:39:44 2005 |
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.