loggerhead vs packs performance

[Robert Collins]

On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 17:42 +0100, Michael Hudson wrote:
> Robert asked me to do check loggerhead's performance when pointed at  
> a repository using packs (I tested with was bzr.dev).
> 
> The performance is summarized in this table (the numbers are the  
> minimum page load time in ms reported by 'ab -n 15' on the given view):

> (this was done on my old slow os x powerbook, which is why the  
> numbers are SO uniformly bad).
> 
> For the changelog and inventory views, packs are a little slower, but  
> probably nothing some tuning and effort wouldn't sort out.  Annotate  
> is pretty slow (but that may have been expected? 

Yes, because annotate loads text indices.

>  And the rendering  
> performance is still dreadful here).  The revision view, though, is  
> atrociously slow with packs, and this is borne out with timings of  
> 'bzr diff':

Diff, like annotate, accesses the text indices; these currently (like
knits) load the entire index, never a partial index, but unlike bzr.dev
there is one for the whole tree, not one per file.

So, no massive surprises here for me, its good to know that it's not
slow in a suprising way.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20070927/fcc165bb/attachment.pgp