Bazaar repository size benchmarks

[Matthieu Moy]

John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

> Pieter de Bie wrote:
> | Hello,
> |
> | I did some benchmarks on repository size for repositories with full
> | history. I compared the size of Git, Bazaar as well as Mercurial
> | repositories. The results of this experiment can be seen here:
> | http://vcscompare.blogspot.com/2008/06/git-mercurial-bazaar-repository-size.html

Interesting.

Actually, you imported only one branch for each project. It would be
also interesting to see how the tools behave in the presence of many
branches.

I remember some discussion of Mercurial's list about some
inefficiencies related to the presence of branches (the difficulty is:
if you commit to branch A, then switch to branch B, and commit again,
the best base to do a delta is not necessarily the last commited
revision in the repository). I think Git would distance Mercurial even
more, but the numbers would speak better than I ;-).

> | The short conclusion is that Bazaar comes out last in the test. It's
> | repositories are on average 2.8 times as big as those of Git.
> | Mercurial also does better.
> |
> | This should be put in contrast with
> | http://bazaar-vcs.org/Benchmarks/SpaceEfficiency , where Bazaar comes
> | out on top. The reason for this is that my benchmarks include full
> | repository history and also pack the repository before measuring
> | repository size. Furthermore, the SpaceEfficiency benchmark does not
> | take hardlinks in account (which Git uses when cloning a repository).
>
> Did you delete the .bzr/repository/obsolete-packs/* after doing the 'bzr pack'?

The blog entry says "for Bazaar it meant a “bzr pack”, and removing
the obsolete packs."

-- 
Matthieu