loggerhead vs packs performance

Michael Hudson michael.hudson at canonical.com
Mon Oct 15 11:23:48 BST 2007


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):
>
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
> | | changelog | inventory | annotate | revision |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
> | pack_cached | 1371 | 3174 | 23259 | 10606 |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
> | knit_cached | 1373 | 2174 | 16625 | 4135 |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
> | pack_nocache | 6760 | 4169 | 24439 | 10178 |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
> | knit_nocache | 5645 | 3530 | 19215 | 4249 |
> +---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+ 
>
>
> (this was done on my old slow os x powerbook, which is why the numbers 
> are SO uniformly bad).
>
So Robert ping me to run these again, which I did:

+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| | changelog | inventory | annotate | revision |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| pack_cached | 472 | 690 | 138253 | 1677 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| knit_cached | 592 | 785 | 6448 | 1684 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| pack_nocache | 1527 | 866 | 137984 | 1867 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| knit_nocache | 2133 | 1226 | 6931 | 1859 |
+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

So generally looking pretty good now, apart from annotate which is 
dreadful but I guess this level of dreadfulness must be known. 
Loggerhead does annotate in a strange way that's an optimization with 
cached annotations but probably isn't without but the equivalent 
annotate on the command line is still 50 seconds...

Cheers,
mwh



More information about the bazaar mailing list